Unmaking the Myth
The Special Theory of Relativity
By Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Copyright© 2000 -2001
By Christopher Jon Bjerknes
All Rights Reserved
This book should not be used as a source book. It undoubtedly contains numerous errors and is intended only to stimulate interest, not to be used for quotation or citation. Look up the original material if you wish to read an accurate rendition. Much of what appears has been redacted and contains errors and omissions. The author, publisher and supplier assume no liability for the use or distribution of this book.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Priority Myth 3
The Special Theory of Relativity Myth 17
The Two Postulate Myth 56
James Sully 105
Albert A. Michelson 105
John Locke 105
Isaac Newton 147
G. W. Leibnitz 160
Roger Joseph Boscovich 162
J. L. Lagrange 169
Melchior Palágyi 172
George Berkeley 188
David Hume 190
Johann Friedrich Herbart 206
Thomas Reid 210
Sir William Hamilton 216
Edgar Allen Poe 227
J. B. Stallo 227
W. R. Grove 238
William B. Carpenter 238
Lord Kelvin & Peter Guthrie Tait 238
William Kingdon Clifford 239
John Tyndall 239
James Clerk Maxwell 240
J. D. Everett 242
Edward A. Bowser 246
Joseph S. Van Dyke 246
William James 246
Edwin A. Abbott 273
J. C. F. von Schiller 274
Camille Flammarion 275
H. G. Wells 275
Joseph Conrad & Ford Madox Hueffer 277
Ernst Mach 281
Ludwig Lange 295
Simon Newcomb 328
D. Mendeléeff 329
Aurel Anderssohn 330
A. E. Dolbear 331
Henry August Rowland 335
John H. Barr 340
Wilhelm Bölsche 341
Henri Poincaré 342
G. F. FitzGerald 375
Paul Langevin 376
W. Voigt 378
Joseph Larmor 417
H. A. Lorentz 435
I. The Priority Myth
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."--Albert Einstein
It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority.1 The historic record is readily available. Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Jules Henri Poincaré, and many others slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research. Albert may have made a few contributions to the theory, such as the relativistic equations for the Doppler-Fizeau Effect,2 though he may also have rendered an incorrect equation for the transverse mass of an electron, which, when corrected, becomes Lorentz' equation.3
If Albert Einstein did not originate the major concepts of the special theory of relativity, how could such a historically significant fact have escaped the attention of the world for nearly a century? The simple answer is that it did not.
Some called Albert's priority into question almost immediately. As early as the years 1905-1907, Planck, Kaufmann, Ehrenfest, Laue, Minkowski, and Albert Einstein, himself, referred to the Einstein theory as being a mere interpretation-generalization of Lorentz' theory, which interpretation was first accomplished by Poincaré and later became known as the "Special Theory of Relativity". Minkowski4 named Lorentz, Planck and Poincaré, together with Einstein, as the developers of the principle of relativity,
"H. A. Lorentz has found out the "Relativity theorem" and has created the Relativity-postulate as a hypothesis that electrons and matter suffer contractions in consequence of their motion according to a certain law."
"The credit for the development of the general principle [the principle of relativity] belongs to Einstein, Poincaré and Planck, upon whose works I shall presently expound."
"Verdienste um die Ausarbeitung des allgemienen Prinzips haben Einstein, Poincaré und Planck, über deren Arbeiten ich alsbald Näheres sagen werde."
Planck5 and Poincaré attributed the principle of relativity to H. A. Lorentz. Max von Laue wrote of "the principle of relativity of classical mechanics" and "the principle of relativity of the Lorentz Transformation".6
Alfred Arthur Robb spoke to the issue in 1914,
"Although generally associated with the names of Einstein and Minkowski, the really essential physical considerations underlying the theories are due to Larmor and Lorentz." 7
Charles Nordmann averred, in 1921,
"The only time of which we have any idea apart from all objects is the psychological time so luminously studied by M. Bergson: a time which has nothing except the name in common with the time of physicists, of science. It is really to Henri Poincaré, the great Frenchman whose death has left a void that will never be filled, that we must accord the merit of having first proved, with the greatest lucidity and the most prudent audacity, that time and space, as we know them, can only be relative. A few quotations from his works will not be out of place. They will show that the credit for most of the things which are currently attributed to Einstein is, in reality, due to Poincaré. [***] I venture to sum up all this in a sentence which will at first sight seem a paradox: in the opinion of the Relativists it is the measuring rods which create space, the clocks which create time. All this was maintained long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him." 8
Friedrich Kottler, author of Gravitation und Relativitätstheorie in 1903, revealed on March 31st, 1922, through the prestigious, well-read and well-respected Encyklopädie der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 6, 2, 2, p. 171, note (13),
"H. Poincaré, Palermo Rend. Circ. Math. 21 (1906), p. 129-175, especially p. 175, Formula (14). -- This work of Poincaré's is dated July 23, 1905 and is the elaboration of a memorandum by the same title in the Parisian C. R. 140 (June 5, 1905), p. 1504-8. The "postulate" of relativity was enunciated here for the first time, before Einstein."
"H. Poincaré, Palermo Rend. Circ. Math. 21 (1906), p. 129-175, insbes. p. 175, Formel (14). -- Diese Arbeit Poincarés stammt vom 23. Juli 1905 und ist die Ausarbeit einer Note gleichen Titels aus den Paris C. R. 140 (5. Juni 1905), p. 1504-8. Hier wurde zum erstenmal, vor Einstein, das ,,Postulat" der Relativität ausgesprochen. [Emphasis found in the original]"
James Mackaye wrote in 1931,
"Now Einstein continually maintains that the theory of Lorentz is right, only he disagrees with his 'interpretation.' Is it not clear, therefore, that in this, as in other cases, Einstein's theory is merely a disguise for Lorentz's, the apparent disagreement about 'interpretation' being a matter of words only?" 9
Sir Edmund Whittaker in his detailed survey, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Vol. II, chapter II, (1953), wrote a chapter entitled "The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz", and thoroughly documented the development of the theory, documenting the authentic history, and demonstrably denying Albert priority for the majority of the theory. Albert offered no counter-argument to Whittaker's famous book, in which the following passage appeared,
"Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz with some amplifications, and which attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the constancy of the velocity of light, i.e. that the velocity of light in vacuo is the same in all systems of reference which are moving relatively to each other: an assertion which at the time was widely accepted, but has been severally criticized by later writers." 10
Whittaker wrote a realistic biography of Albert, in Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, N|. 1, (1955), pages 37-67, which reiterated the truth, that Albert did not create the theory of relativity.
Even among Albert's admirers, voices are heard, which deny Albert's priority. Max Born averred that,
"[Methuen & co. Ltd's Ed.] Lorentz enunciated the laws according to which the measured quantities in various systems may be transformed into each other, and he proved that these transformations leave the field equations of the electron theory unchanged. This is the mathematical content of his discovery. Larmor (1900) and Poincaré (1905) arrived at similar results about the same time. It is interesting historically that the formula of transformation to a moving system, which we nowadays call Lorentz' transformation (see vi, 2, p. 200 formula (72)), were set up by Voigt as early as 1877 [sic] in a dissertation which was still founded on the elastic theory of light. [***] In the new theory of Lorentz the principle of relativity holds, in conformity with the results of experiment, for all electrodynamic events."
"[Dover's revised Ed.] As mentioned already, Lorentz and Poincaré have succeeded in doing this by careful analysis of the properties of Maxwell's equations. They were indeed in possession of a great deal of mathematical theory. Lorentz, however, was so attached to his assumption of an ether absolutely at rest that he did not acknowledge the physical significance of the equivalence of the infinite numbers of systems of reference which he had proved. He continued to believe that one of them represented the ether at rest. Poincaré went a step further. It was quite clear to him that Lorentz's viewpoint was not tenable and that the mathematical equivalence of systems of reference meant the validity of the principle of relativity. He also was quite clear about the consequences of his theory." 11
"I have now to say some words about the work of these predecessors of Einstein, mainly of Lorentz and Poincaré. [***] H. A. Lorentz' important papers of 1892 and 1895 on the electrodynamics of moving bodies contain much of the formalism of relativity. [***] Poincaré's papers [***] show that as early as 1899 he regarded it as very probable that absolute motion is indetectable in principle and that no ether exists. He formulated the same ideas in a more precise form, though without any mathematics, in a lecture given in 1904 to a Congress of Arts and Science at St. Louis, U.S.A., and he predicted the rise of a new mechanics which will be characterized above all by the rule, that no velocity can exceed the velocity of light. [***] The reasoning used by Poincaré was just the same as that which Einstein introduced in his first paper of 1905 [***] Does this mean that Poincaré knew all this before Einstein? It is possible [***] Many of you have looked upon [Albert's] paper 'Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper' in Annalen der Physik (4), vol. 17, p. 811, 1905, and you will have noticed some peculiarities. The striking point is that it contains not a single reference to previous literature. It gives you the impression of quite a new venture. But that is, of course, as I have tried to explain, not true." 12
Peter Gabriel Bergmann asserted,
"The Dutch physicist, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1853-1928) contrived a theoretical scheme according to which absolute motion of physical objects, including measuring rods, should compress them in such a manner that differences in the speed of light remained undetectable by any conceivable apparatus. Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912), the French mathematician, suggested that the consistent failure to identify the frame representing absolute rest indicated that no such frame existed, and that Newton's scheme of the multiplicity of inertial frames was valid after all. In 1905, Einstein combined Lorentz' and Poincaré's ideas into a new approach to the issue of frames of reference and so was able to explain why no experiment had uncovered the absolute motion of the earth, without contradicting Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism."13
Bergmann fails to acknowledge that the 1905 paper failed to present references to the work it "combined" of Lorentz and Poincaré, and the minor importance of that which was "new" in the "approach". He also fails to convey the significant fact that Poincaré's work was itself the combination of Lorentz' and Poincaré's ideas, which "combination" Albert did not create, but simply repeated, virtually verbatim.
G. H. Keswani argued that,
"As far back as 1895, Poincaré the innovator had conjectured that it is impossible to detect absolute motion. In 1900 he introduced the 'The principle of relative motion' which he later called by the equivalent terms 'The law of relativity' and 'The principle of relativity' in his book Science and Hypothesis published in 1902. He further asserted in this book that there is no absolute time and that we have no intuition of the 'simultaneity' of two 'events' (mark the words) occurring at different places. In a lecture given in 1904, Poincaré reiterated the principle of relativity, described the method of synchronisation of clocks with light signals, urged a more satisfactory theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Lorentz's ideas and predicted a new mechanics characterized by the rule that the velocity of light cannot be surpassed. This was followed in June 1905 by a mathematical paper entitled 'Sur la dynamique de l'électron' in which the connection between relativity (impossibility of absolute motion) and the Lorentz Transformation given by Lorentz a year earlier was recognized. In point of fact, therefore, Poincaré was not only the first to enunciate the principle, but he also discovered in Lorentz's work the necessary mathematical formulation of the principle. All this happened before Einstein's paper appeared." 14
Albert, himself, wrote,
"This rigid four-dimensional space of the special theory of relativity is to some extent a four-dimensional analogue of H. A. Lorentz's rigid three-dimensional aether." 15
"I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation." 16
Poincaré provided the "four-dimensional analogue"17 and relativized the "Lorentzian ether" long before Minkowski or Albert. In fact, Minkowski was well aware of Poincaré's earlier work, before Minkowski presented his four dimensional interpretation.18 Albert, together with Jakob Laub, denounced Minkowski's four dimensional interpretation of the Lorentzian ether, in 1908.19
Many people knew that Albert did not hold priority for much of what he wrote. He, himself, was keenly aware of it. It is not uncommon for grandiose myths to accrue to overly idealized popular figures, such as Albert Einstein.
Albert did not invent the atomic bomb. In fact, he was ignorant of the concept, and the concept of the bomb had to be explained to him before he could write to President Roosevelt urging him to instigate what would become the Manhattan Project.20 One may wonder, did Albert frequently became the political toy of others? Albert did not usher in the atomic age,21 nor was he the first to state the mass-energy equivalence, or E = mc^2. Myths such as Albert's supposed discoveries are not uncommon. For example, few in his time knew that President Roosevelt was severely handicapped, being limited to a wheel chair, and the press cooperated in keeping Roosevelt's disability a secret. Is it difficult to believe that this same press presented Albert Einstein as a super-hero of science, when he was, in fact, less than that, perhaps much less? It was a good story for them to sell.
Consider briefly the mass-energy equivalence. Huygens and Leibnitz presented the quantity of motion, energy, E = mv^2, as opposed to the Aristotelian-Cartesian-Newtonian quantity of motion, momentum, p = mv. This mathematical identity, E = mv^2, is the mass-energy equivalence. S. Tolver Preston formulated atomic energy, the atomic bomb and superconductivity back in the 1870's, based on the formula E = mc^2, where celeritas signifies the speed of light.22 Maxwell's equations implicitly contain the formula E = mc^2. Simon Newcomb pioneered the concept of relativistic energy in 1889.23 G. N. Lewis gave us relativistic mass in 1908.24 Thomson, Poincaré, Olinto De Pretto, Fritz Hasenöhrl, Bucherer, [etc. etc. etc.] presented E = mc^2 before 1905.
Alexander Bain expressly stated in 1870 that,
"matter, force, and inertia, are three names for substantially the same fact"
"force and matter are not two things, but one thing"
"force, inertia, momentum, matter, are all but one fact".25
Thomson defined the inertia of his vortex atom based on its energy content. A. E. Dolbear wrote in this context that,
"Hence, inertia, too, must be looked upon as probably due to motion"
"It is not simply an amount of material, but the energy the material has, which gives it its characteristic properties." 26
Boscovich claimed that inertia is a relative quantity and is not absolute.27 These same concepts are to be found in Aristotle and Heraclitus.
How has the history become so corrupted as to ignore the above stated facts? Historians all too often look to the conclusions of previous historians, rather than to the historic record itself. For example, the British, who initially denied the existence of the aether,28 and attributed that denial to Newton, later posthumously awarded Newton credit for the very discovery of the aether.29 Newton did not deny the aether, nor did he discover it, but once the historians drew one conclusion or the other, the myths became entrenched and were exploited for political gain by both sides of the debate over the existence of the aether, as the cyclical changes in dogma played out over the intervening centuries. Newton sought an explanation for gravity by means of the aether as an intervening medium, but modern histories perpetuate the myth that Newton viewed gravity as an innate force of inert matter.
Once the history is corrupted, people begin to see in the words of their ancestors images which are not there, much like the optical illusion of an image of two faces, which image also depicts a vase. If told to describe the picture of the vase, before being shown the image, a person will see a vase in the picture. If told to describe the two faces, before being presented the picture, a person will see in it two faces. If taught that Newton denied the existence of the aether, a person will believe those historians who record that Newton denied the aether, and may even see in his writings the proof. If taught that Newton discovered the existence of the aether, a person will believe those historians who record that Newton discovered the aether, and may even see in his writings the proof. This is all the more true, for Isaac, like Albert, was reluctant to disclose that his thoughts were largely unoriginal, and the undisciplined historian, who will often not find the pertinent citations in Newton's work itself, may look no further.
Historians record their impressions and not history itself. They are politically motivated. Later historians all too often record the works of earlier historians, and the truth is lost in the process. This is a double-edged sword, which cuts both ways.
Many who are aware that Albert was not an original thinker wrongfully attribute the special theory of relativity to Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, often believing that Minkowski first set in cement the notion of the uniform translation of space. Many worship Hendrik Antoon as a hero, just as many worship Albert as a hero. However, Lorentz and Minkowski deserve little more credit than does Albert Einstein.
The real "credit" for the relativistic notions of space and time substantially belongs to Boscovich, Lange, Voigt, FitzGerald, Hertz, Larmor, Poincaré, Cohn30 and Laub, who are, with the possible exceptions of FitzGerald and Poincaré, almost never cited in the popular literature as originators of the theory.
The so-called "Lorentz Transformation" is by no means proprietary to Lorentz. The much touted modern "Principle of Relativity"--the belief that absolute space is, in principle, undetectable--was nothing more than one very common interpretation of the negative result of Michelson's experiment, though not the conclusion Michelson himself reached. He believed his experiment discredited the then standard explanation of aberration via a resting aether. Michelson turned to Stoke's theory of aberration and a "dragged aether" to explain the negative result of his experiments.31
The events which led to Albert's rise to fame are a fascinating story of hero worship and historic revisionism. The ongoing disclosure of documents related to Albert's life raise many new questions. Was the man we are led to envision, with the Mark Twain persona and charisma, in fact a stumbling, sadistic brute, who wrested his fame from his wife Mileva's misery? 32
In 1905, several articles bearing the name of Albert Einstein appeared in a German physics journal, Annalen der Physik. The most fateful among these, was a paper entitled Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper; von A. Einstein, Albert's supposedly breakthrough paper on the 'principle of relativity'. Though it was perhaps submitted as coauthored by Mileva Einstein-Marity and Albert Einstein, or solely by Mileva Einstein-Marity, Albert's name appeared in the journal as the exclusive author of their work.33
Abraham F. Joffe recounts that the paper was signed "Einstein-Marity". "Marity" is a variant of the Serbian "Maric", Mileva's maiden name. Joffe, who had seen the original 1905 manuscript, is on record as stating,
"For Physics, and especially for the Physics of my generation, that of Einstein's contemporaries, Einstein's entrance into the arena of science is unforgettable. In 1905, three articles appeared in the 'Annalen der Physik', which began three very important branches of 20th Century Physics. Those were the theory of Brownian movement, the theory of the photoelectric effect and the theory of relativity. The author of these articles, who was an unknown at the time, was a clerk at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity is the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)."
" , -- , . 1905 . + - , . : , . -- - ( -- , )." 34
Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric's interpretation of the facts are found in her book, Im Schatten Albert Einsteins, Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Maric, in which she discusses Mileva's role in creating the special theory of relativity, and states, inter alia,
"The distinguished Russian physicist [***] Abraham F. Joffe (1880-1960), pointed out in his 'In Remembrance of Albert Einstein', that Einstein's three epochal articles in Volume 17 of "Annalen der Physik" of 1905 were originally signed "Einstein-Maric". Joffe had seen the originals as assistant to Röntgen, who belonged to the Board of the "Annalen", which had examined submitted contributions for editorial purposes. Röntgen showed his summa cum laude student this work, and Joffe thereby came face to face with the manuscripts, which are no longer available today."
"Der hervorragende russische Physiker [***] Abraham F. Joffe (1880-1960), machte in seinen +Erinnerung an Albert Einstein- darauf aufmerksam, dass die drei epochemachenden Artikel Einsteins im Band XVII der +Annalen der Physik- von 1905 im Original mit +Einstein-Maric- gezeichnet waren. Joffe hatte die Originale als Assistent von Röntgen gesehen, der dem Kuratorium der +Annalen- angehörte, das die bei der Redaktion eingereichten Beiträge zu begutachten hatte. Zu dieser Arbeit zog Röntgen seinen summa cum laude-Schüler Joffe bei, der auf diese Weise die heute nicht mehr greifbaren Manuskripte zu Gesicht bekam." 35
If "Einstein-Marity" refers to a sole person, that person is Mileva Maric, not Albert Einstein.
Joffe was no bumbling fool. He knew full well that his statement would be noticed. Though Joffe's statement superficially indicates that it was Albert who went by the name of "Einstein-Marity", such a claim, and the parenthetical explanation it compelled, were extraordinary! Joffe was probably, as imperceptibly as his conscience would allow, disclosing to the world that Albert was not the author, or, at least, not the sole author, of the works in question. Joffe's statements appeared fifty years after he had read the 1905 papers. It stuck with him all those many years that the papers were indelibly signed "Einstein-Marity". How could Joffe have known that Mileva Maric went by the name of Einstein-Marity, if the name had not appeared on the 1905 papers?
There is no Swiss custom by which the husband automatically adds his wife's maiden name to his, and even if there were, neither Albert nor Mileva were Swiss. Albert Einstein never signed his name "Einstein-Marity". Swiss law permits the male, the female, or both, to use a double last name, but this must be declared before the marriage, and it was Mileva, not Albert, who opted for the last name "Einstein-Marity". A married person may use the hyphenated "Allianzname" in everyday use, but it was Mileva who went by "Einstein-Marity", not Albert. Albert signed his marriage records simply "Einstein". Mileva's death notice reads "Einstein-Marity". If Albert had gone by the name of "Einstein-Marity", it would have appeared in many places, and it does not. It was perhaps subtly amusing to Joffe to point out that it was unknown that Albert's wife had written, or coauthored, the Annalen papers. There is apparently no other plausible reason for Joffe to have made this allusion, nor is there any plausible explanation as to how he came to know the name "Einstein-Marity", other than his having read it in 1905.
Did Mileva loose her nerve in the end and ask not to be named as the author of the unoriginal works? Were the works submitted as coauthored works, but the couple was persuaded that it would be better to have a male name in print? Was there a printing error? Why, after fifty years, would Joffe come out with the disclosure that the papers were submitted by "Einstein-Marity"? Why did that fact nag him for fifty years, and why did he feel compelled to publicly express it, after Albert Einstein had died?
In 1905, Albert was working as a patent clerk. He was unable to perform the mathematical work the job entailed and required the aid of an assistant, who performed the mathematical work for him. Albert confessed to Abraham Pais, "I am not a mathematician." 36 While still a child, Albert's parents suspected that he was mentally retarded.37 We have direct evidence from Albert's own pen that the work on relativity theory was a collaboration between Mileva and him,
"How happy and proud I will be, when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end!"
"Wie glücklich und stolz werde ich sein, wenn wir beide zusammen unsere Arbeit über die Relativbewegung siegreich zu Ende geführt haben!" 38
Albert may have lacked the mathematical skills and intellectual abilities to have written the 1905 paper alone. On the other hand, Mileva, his first wife, was exceptionally bright, and all indications are that those who knew her throughout her life found her the more intelligent of the pair. She probably had the needed intellectual prowess to have written the 1905 paper on the principle of relativity. Given the many blunders in the paper, it is safe to assume that neither one of them was a superlative mathematician. It also appears that publication of the paper may have been rushed.
Mileva and Albert had coauthored papers before39 and Albert had assumed credit for what Mileva alone had accomplished.40 Albert would often simply agree with whomever he had last spoken,41 and it is within the realm of possibilities that he was in some sense a mere parrot. Upon meeting with colleagues, he would often grill them for information on their theories, seemingly soaking it all in, perhaps to repeat it later as his own.
Certain anecdotal accounts paint Albert in a bad light. Upon refusing to brush his teeth, Albert allegedly proclaimed that, "pigs' bristles can drill through diamond, so how should my teeth stand up to them?" 42 Explaining why he didn't wear a hat in the rain, he asserted that hair dries faster than hats, and irritably asserted that such was obvious. It apparently eluded him that the objective was, in the first place, to keep the hair dry. Explaining why he didn't wear socks, Albert commented, "When I was young I found out that the big toe always ends up by making a hole in the sock. So I stopped wearing socks" 43 and "What use are socks? They only produce holes." 44 He also wasn't too handy around the house, and seemingly had a difficult time conceptualizing geometric problems.45 He insisted that two holes be bored through his front door, one larger than the other, so that both the large cat, and the small cat, could pass through the door.
After meeting Albert, Max von Laue found it difficult to believe that Albert had written the 1905 paper, "Ich tat das auch, aber der junge Mann, der mir entgegen kam, machte mir einen so unerwarteten Eindruck, daß ich nicht glaubte, er könne der Vater der Relativitätstheorie sein." 46 Minkowski, who had been Albert's professor, found it difficult to believe that Albert had written the 1905 paper. Minkowski didn't think Albert capable of it.
Charles Nordmann, who chauffeured the Nobel Prize holding Albert around France, sarcastically described him as a vacant-eyed, simian clod.47 Nordmann sarcastically ranked him with Newton, Des Cartes or Henri Poincaré.48 Like Rabelais and Voltaire before him, Nordmann lavished sarcastic praise on the new hero and derided him in ways which would elude the unsophisticated, but which were clear to those knowledgeable of the facts. Nordmann was careful not to be too blunt, for he wished to advocate the theory of relativity, and it was politically expedient for him to ride on Albert's coat tails, but Nordmann never failed to get his digs in.
In Germany, one hundred scientists rallied against relativity theory and published Ein Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein. Ernst Gehrcke asserted that Albert's rise to fame was a "mass suggestion" fed by the press, who would frequently misrepresent the facts, and misrepresented the views of many leading authorities, who were in reality mostly opposed to relativity theory. Gehrcke seemingly decided to fight propaganda with thoroughly documented fact, but came up on the losing side. Albert's smile was perhaps too endearing to be successfully countered by the facts.49
Is there any evidence that Albert wrote unoriginal works as a pattern?
By 1905, before the appearance of his first paper on "special relativity", Albert Einstein had already demonstrated a knack for repeating the work of others, as though he had somehow thought of it independently, later, and nevertheless deserved credit for his supposedly independent inspiration.50 His early papers were thoroughly unoriginal, and it is within the realm of possibilities that he may have derived them from the works of Gibbs and Boltzmann (the relevant works will be addressed in another volume of this series), without giving them their due credit. Albert's writings would often repeat, virtually verbatim, the writings of others, but Albert's papers were often virtually devoid of footnotes. The 1905 paper on relativity wanted for a single reference.
Is it possible that Albert could have simply copied the then famous papers of scientists? Could Albert have acted like a teenager, who opens an encyclopedia article, changes a few words and copies the rest, then submits the finished forgery as his own term paper?
Perhaps, the question is moot. The priorities, however, are clear. The repeated occurrences of the repetition evince a pattern, though, perhaps, some might argue, a coincidental pattern. In any event, the credit belongs to those who published first, and Albert was rarely, if ever, amongst them.
Was it Albert who was fitting the formulae others had published before him into a new dress to call his own, or was it his brilliant wife, Mileva? In my opinion, and this is certainly a debatable question, and my opinion is not a fact, Albert's supposed genius seems to have diminished after his divorce from Mileva in 1919. Why would that be so? He died in 1955, and produced nothing extraordinarily significant after his divorce, in my opinion, and other authorities would almost certainly contest this opinion, though many who were closest to Albert have agreed. This is a subjective question.
After winning the Nobel Prize (expressly not for relativity theory, by the way, but for an unoriginal paper of relatively minor importance) in 1922, Albert paid his former wife the money which he had won in the prize, but why?
Why pay Mileva the winnings? Was Albert overly generous in the support of his family? Many accounts indicate that he was not.
Why did the Nobel committee not award Albert the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity theory? Could it have been that all who were familiar with the facts, knew that Albert did not originate the major concepts behind relativity theory? It is supposedly unclear, but many parts of the puzzle present an image of political motivation, and not merit, being the impetus behind Albert's award.
Some ten years prior, Wilhelm Wien had recommended that the Nobel Prize be given to both Lorentz and Albert Einstein in 1912, on the grounds that,
"One should [***] assess the merits of both investigators as being comparable."
However, Albert's half of the pie by all rights belonged to Poincaré, who died in 1912, and it would have been in exceedingly bad taste to exploit his death to award the Nobel Prize to Albert.
Ernst Gehrcke demonstrated that P. Gerber had anticipated the general theory of relativity, making a Nobel Prize for that theory impossible. Wien, in recommending Lorentz and Albert for the special theory, effectively disclosed that Albert held no priority for it, as everyone knew that Poincaré stated the principle of relativity long before Albert. It is clear that the Nobel committee simply manufactured an excuse to award the then celebrity, Albert Einstein, and in some minds traitor to the German cause in World War I, a prize, merely mentioning the photo-electric effect, for which Albert held no priority, as a possible excuse, which white lie apparently offended few.
Could the monies Albert paid Mileva have been 'hush money'? Though the payment was made pursuant to a divorce agreement, would not a divorce agreement typically stipulate that the male was indebted to the female and must pay her, regardless of the means by which the money was obtained? Mileva had children to feed, Albert's children. When the divorce agreement was reached, it was far from certain that Albert would ever win the Nobel Prize. Why would Mileva roll the dice with the future of her children?
Why would they reach an agreement which stipulated that the monies be paid if and only if Albert might someday win the Nobel Prize? It was far from certain that Albert would ever win the Nobel Prize. Could the agreement have related not to the responsibilities of marriage, but to potential monetary gain derived from Mileva's efforts? Is it possible that if it were Mileva's work, and that work paid off, Albert would pay her off, and then only to keep her silent? It seems an extraordinary proposition. Could it have been Mileva's way of saying, "Hey, if you ever get any serious money out of my work, I deserve the money, because it was my work!"
Mileva once hinted to Albert that she was contemplating publishing her memoirs, Albert told her to keep her mouth shut, and may have intimated that he, an innocent idiot, would suffer less than she, the incorrigible plagiarist. That is but one of many plausible interpretations of Albert's words.51
Why didn't Mileva come forward with the fact that she was the one who had written the work, if in fact she had? Did Albert buy Mileva's silence? Even if he had, was there more to hold Mileva back from exposing Albert, than the desperate need for monies?
Hypothetically speaking, would Albert have been able to prove to the world that the theory was not completely original when Annalen der Physik first published the 1905 paper, if Mileva herself had merely condensed the works of Lange, Voigt, Hertz, FitzGerald, Larmor, Cohn, Langevin, Lorentz and Poincaré? If so, what would Mileva have stood to gain by revealing that Albert had taken credit for her work, when she herself had merely repeated what others had already published?
Would it then have been the case that neither of the Einsteins, not Albert, not Mileva, "thought God thought's", as popular myth now holds? Might they have read scientists' papers and books, rewrote them, and attached Albert's name to what was not his? Is such a thing possible? Did Albert demonstrably repeat, again and again, what others had published before him, mirroring their words in virtually identical form?
Did it ever happen to Albert, that someone would repeat what he had earlier published, and then claimed priority for thoughts which Albert had first published? Would Albert have tolerated such misbehavior? He was aggressive in response to challenges to his priority. Albert stated that it is wrong not to give credit where credit is due,
"That, alas, is vanity. You find it in so many scientists. You know, it has always hurt me to think that Galileo did not acknowledge the work of Kepler." 52
If one thief steals from another thief, then offers to split the purse, what option does either thief have, but to keep silent and spend the money? What might have happened, if, hypothetically speaking, Mileva knew that she had written the work for which Albert took credit? What if, hypothetically speaking, Albert knew that Mileva had copied the ideas, examples, explanations, equations and phrases, from Lange, Voigt, Hertz, FitzGerald, Larmor, Cohn, Langevin, Lorentz and Poincaré? In such a hypothetical scenario, what could Mileva have done? What would have been in her self-interest?
Did Mileva begin hoping that Albert would rise to fame and she would lead a charmed life with her famous husband? Her words might indicate that she did. Serbian women had little chance at fame in those days, other than as ornaments attached to their husbands' arms. Tesla, a Serb born in Croatia, was unfairly treated in the West. What chance did Mileva stand? Albert brutalized her. Her self-confidence may been destroyed.
Albert once demanded in writing that Mileva obey his cruel and degrading orders, in a letter which can only be described as shocking and revolting.53
Is it possible that Mileva may have believed that her only hope for fame and fortune was to build up Albert and use him for her ends? Did Albert have strong morals? Under such hypothetical conditions, would Albert have been fit for the role as cohort to plagiarism, if plagiarism were ever to occur? He may have been incontinent, perhaps even an incestuous adulterer.54 He was perhaps even a foul-mouthed,55 syphilitic whore monger.56 Did Albert have no choice but to copy what others had published before him, if indeed he actually ever did? Was he of sub-average intelligence? 57 Given that this issue is controversial, I'll give Albert the benefit of the doubt and regard the 1905 paper as a coauthored work.
From whence came Albert's idealistic politics? If his claims to priority in physics were phoney, were his politics then as phoney as his claims to priority in physics? One can only speculate. He repeated much of what H. G. Wells had accomplished, both in physics and politics. Wells holds priority on the concept of four-dimensional space-time, the atomic bomb, and many other innovations of thought. Poincaré and Minkowski also addressed some of these topics, but somehow, they are today associated almost exclusively with Albert's last name.
I do not mean to belittle much of what Albert said in terms of politics, but find it within the realm of possibilities that he may have merely parroted, and been a spokesperson for, the thoughts of others, some of which were quite noble aspirations. Of course, it may have been purely coincidental that he restated the words of others, usually the same others in the same context.
Even some of Albert's quaint anecdotes have their prior cousins. He told a story of his supposed fantasy of traveling at light speed,58 the so-called "Aarau Question". However, this fantasy was the subject of a novel popular among physicists of his day written by a famous astronomer, Lumen, by Camille Flammarion. Lumen was first published many decades before Albert claimed credit for the story and discusses not only travel at luminal and superluminal velocities, but the complete relativity of time and space, and the use of light speed as a measurement of relative distance, time and simultaneity! This appears repeatedly in the Nineteenth Century as a French conception, inspired by Fizeau and Flammarion, furthered by Bergson in his Time and Free Will, an Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness, and brought to fruition in Poincaré's The Measurement of Time, and, Science and Hypothesis, and his 1904 St. Louis lecture, The Principles of Mathematical Physics. However, it was the Croation Jesuit Boscovich who had the profoundest, and prior, insight regarding relative simultaneity.59
The equating of light speed to length and time was placed in the consciousness of physicists by Roemer, whose calculations of light's finite speed underpin the definition of simultaneity in modern physics. Fizeau defined space as isotropic with regards to light speed and assumed that:
c = ( 2AB ) ? ( t'A - tA ),
where c = celeritas, the wave speed of light, AB is the length of the path of light from point A to point B, and ( t'A - tA ) is the time interval of the round trip path of reflected light from A to B and back to A.
Fizeau thereby presented a new circular definition of time. Poincaré demonstrated that this new circular definition of time rendered simultaneity relative, and that the presumption of a one way light speed was the presumption of a measurement of time. Time was previously defined by the circular definition of uniform motion supplied by Galileo, where equal spaces are defined to be traversed in equal times.
In Albert's famous lecture of 1922 in Japan,60 he recounts that he derived inspiration from "Michelson's experiment". Then, years later, Albert denied having known of the experiment before the 1905 paper appeared.61
Albert supposedly arose from bed once and wondered if events were absolutely simultaneous.62 Was Albert reading Poincaré, who had expressly written that events are not absolutely simultaneous, in bed before Albert fell asleep? Albert also told an Eureka-like story of his enlightenment of the special theory of relativity--a story which is suspiciously similar to Archimedes' story.63
Albert may have been a phoney. He may not have been a phoney. The question of priority is one which can be settled based on the historic record. The question of inspiration is perhaps more obscure. To some, the answer may appear obvious.
When his fame increased, Albert divorced Mileva, and entered into an incestuous marriage with his cousin (with whom he was a blood relative through both his mother and his father 64 ), though Albert may have felt that he had the option to choose between a marriage with his cousin, or one of her young daughters. He once referred to his wife-cousin and her two daughters, as his "small harem".65
Do the facts present Albert as a perverse being, sadistically cruel to his family? If they were to, should it be considered the benefit of his genius, and a sacrifice he made for the good of mankind? Would it be an indication that the popular image of the man is a myth? Might there be other myths, or truths, which have been covered up?
Albert told the general public that only twelve men in the world were capable of understanding the theory of relativity.66 After that proclamation, any person who dared contest Albert's priority was susceptible to being labeled as outside the 12 and incapable of understanding the theory.
There is often a striking similarity between Lorentz and Poincaré's writings and Albert's words in both the "special" and "general" theories of relativity. Who published what, first? Was it mere coincidence that time after time, Albert repeated what Poincaré had earlier published? The record indicates that Poincaré held priority, often by many years, over Albert. Why is it that Albert's last name is a household word and is synonymous with "relativity", and Poincaré's name is substantially more obscure? Albert believed,
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." 67
The mathematical transformations in relativity theory are called "Lorentz Transformations",68 an appellation supplied by Poincaré.69 The record indicates that Voigt,70 FitzGerald, Larmor, Poincaré and Lorentz began developing the mathematical expressions of the theory of relativity some 18 years before Albert, and completed them before Albert published on the subject. Boscovich spoke of length contraction, time dilatation, relative simultaneity, and the "Principle of Invariance" resulting from these, back in the 1700's. Poincaré frequently iterated his 'principle of relativity' long before Albert repeated the same principle. Everett, Lange and Rowland had expressed it by 1900, Everett and Lange, some time before even Poincaré. Why is the concept popularly referred to as 'Einstein's theory of relativity'? Are the popular misconceptions and the historic record at odds?
When it was pointed out that Albert repeated what others had written far earlier, some regarded it as an amazing coincidence that someone had mistakenly written what Albert would later discover! For instance,
"[Boscovich's] theory also suggests curious--almost uncanny--intimations of general relativity and quantum mechanics." 71
The lack of footnotes in Albert's writings was not seen as an attempt at plagiarism, but as evidence that Albert conceived the soup from scratch, even though the record proves that the principle of relativity via the "Lorentz Transformation" was a traditional, well-known recipe. The absurdity of assuming that a lack of footnotes indicates the absence of a knowledge of anothers works degenerates into mysticism, and we are asked to accept that Albert did not read what was famously in print in his pet field, but was inspired "if not [by] God, [then by] some otherworldly source".72
For the first originators (a redundancy compelled by the subject matter) of relativity theory, the development was slow, progressive and well documented. It was an evolution, not a holy revelation.
Of course, the indoctrinated habit of scientists is to research the scientific literature before developing a theory. Why wouldn't Albert have done so? The history of science was, after all, Albert's passion.
Could Albert have researched the literature on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, the relative motion of bodies and the failure to detect the motion of the Earth relative to the aether and missed the relevant works of Michelson, Larmor, Cohn, Langevin, Poincaré and Lorentz? Did God really tap Albert on the shoulder and whisper these men's thoughts to Albert, but didn't let Albert in on the poorly kept secret that these men had already published "God's thoughts"?
Albert is known to have read Poincaré 73, and was aware of Lorentz' work, but denied knowledge of the so-called "Lorentz Transformation". Is it plausible to believe that Albert, a supposed genius and master scientist, was completely unaware of Poincaré's, Lorentz' and Larmor's works containing the so-called "Lorentz Transformation", and the principle of relativity, which were the talk of the physics community,74 and the then current literature on the subject of Poincaré's 'principle of relativity', and that it is coincidental that Albert repeated much of what they wrote? Is it a coincidence that Albert repeated the same formulae, in the same context, based on the same explanations, and experiments? Is it a coincidence that the relativity well largely ran dry after Poincaré's untimely death?
Why did Albert's supposed genius appear only after his marriage to Mileva, and why did he not accomplish major breakthroughs, on the level of the special and general theories of relativity, after he divorced her? David Hilbert published the general theory of relativity before Albert.75 Why, after many years of failure, did Albert suddenly realize, within a few days after David Hilbert's work was public, the equations which Hilbert published before him, and then submit his, Albert's, formulations?
Should we believe that Albert came up with the same equations independently of Hilbert, after Albert's long and tortuous, fruitless years of struggling in vain, after begging Hilbert for help, within days of Hilbert's public release? Who was the better mathematician of the two? Who presented the theory first? Who had the better understanding of the principle of least action?76 Who went calling on whom for help, after years of failure?
Which one of the two had evinced a pattern of repeating the work of others, supposedly independently, later, again and again? What was Poincaré's contribution to the general theory of relativity, was it not in large part his conception? And what of Neumann, Mach, Mie, FitzGerald, Clifford, Seeliger, Gerber,77 Soldner78, Oppenheim, Kottler (father of the "Relativitätstheorie" in 1903), de Sitter or Klein? What, exactly, did Albert contribute to the theory? Where, in the historic record, do we find Albert's contribution with established priority? Is the priority Albert's, merely because he claimed it, in spite of the dates of publication?
Why did Albert submit a nonsensical paper after the divorce, which confused renowned scientists? Was he not a great, independent thinker? Is it possible, hypothetically speaking, that Albert wasn't a genius and became so full of himself that he attempted to go it alone, and failed miserably?
Of course, the "great man", as he once called himself,79 was never short of material to steal, should he ever choose to plagiarize. People from around the world wrote to him with their ideas.80 If he were a plagiarist, then the thief would have held the keys to the vault!
Albert evinced a career long pattern of publishing "novel" theories and formulae after others had already published similar words, then claimed priority for himself. He did it with E = mc^2. He did it with the so-called special theory of relativity and he did it with the general theory of relativity. Did Albert simply change the names for terms, and claim he created a new theory, as if Albert called red, "blue", and claimed to have discovered a new color? Did Albert build a career out of hype and plagiarism? Is there a test to determine when a pattern evolves which defies the laws of probability? Without objective proof, the possibilities perhaps remain subjective and unprovable. It would depend, in large part, on the standard of proof which is employed in coming to judgement. However, the priorities remain clear.
Was Albert an honest man? Did he state that he had never read the Michelson-Morley report? Had he read it? Did Albert state that he had never read Poincaré's paper on the dynamics of the electron? Had he read it? Was his memory faulty? Was he easily confused? Was he a liar?
Did Albert become a hero to many and in their minds a demi-god, seemingly the Holy Ghost incarnate, communicating God's thoughts to man? Did the scientific community and the media promote Albert as the genius who figured it all out? Do we need such heroes? Would the scientific community have had a self-interest in promoting Albert as a superior person, with the implication being that scientists in general are superior people? Are scientists in general superior people? Albert is seemingly awarded credit for every scientific advancement and theory from the time of Newton up until Albert's death. Does Albert deserve that credit? What effect did World War I have on the politics which rocketed Albert to fame?
The book you now hold before you is an effort to correct some of the inaccuracies and popular misconceptions regarding the special theory of relativity, as it has come to be called, and to present you, the reader, with documented fact, the dusty old words of the authentic authors--ghosts restless to be recognized. You will find in the pages which follow quotations from primary sources, all of which appeared in print, in public, before the Einsteins published their paper on the principle of relativity in 1905.
1. Sir Edmund Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Vol. II, Philosophical Library Inc., New York, (1954), pp. 27-77.
See also, G. H. Keswani, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, (1965), 15, 60, pp. 286-306; 16, 61, pp.19-32.
2. M. Einstein-Marity and A. Einstein, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, Annalen der Physik, 17, (1905), pp. 910-912.
3. M. Planck, Das Prinzip der Relativität und die Grundgleichungen der Mechanik, Verhandlungen der deutschen physikalischen Gesellschaft, 8, (1906), pp. 136-141.
W. Kaufmann, Über die Konstitution des Elektrons, Annalen der Physik, 19, (1906), pp. 530-531.
4. The Principle of Relativity: Original Papers by A. Einstein and H. Minkowski Translated into English by M. N. Saha and S. N. Bose, University of Calcutta, (1920), H. Minkowski, "Principle of Relativity", translated by Dr. Meghnad N. Saha, p. 2.
H. Minkowski, Annalen der Physik, 47, (1915), p. 928.
5. M. Planck, Verhandlungen der deutschen physikalischen Gesellschaft, 8, (1906), p. 136.
6. Max von Laue, Die Relativitätsprinzip der Lorentztransformation, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, (1921), pp. 12, 48.
7. Alfred Arthur Robb, A Theory of Time and Space, CUP, (1914), p. 1.
8. C. Nordmann, Einstein et l'universe, (1921), translated by Joseph McCabe as Einstein and the Universe, Henry Holt & Co., New York, (1922), pp. 10-11, 16.
9. James Mackaye, The Dynamic Universe, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, (1931), pp. 100-101.
10. Sir Edmund Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Vol. II, Philosophical Library Inc., New York, (1954), p. 40.
11. M. Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London, (1924), pp. 188; Dover, New York, (1962), p. 224.
12. M. Born, Physics in my Generation, 2nd rev. ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, (1969), pp. 101-103, 'Physics and Relativity'
13. P. G. Bergmann, The Riddle of Gravitation, Scribner, New York, (1968), p. 29.
14. G. H. Keswani, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 15, 60, (1965), pp.293-295.
15. A. Einstein, Relativity, The Special and the General Theory, Second Ed., Crown Trade Paperbacks, New York, (1961), p. 171.
16. A. Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, translated by: G. B. Jeffery and W. Perret, Methuen & Co., London, (1922); republished, unabridged and unaltered: Dover, New York, (1983), p. 20.
17. J. H. Poincaré, Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de L'Académie des sciences, 140, (1905), pp. 1504-1508 (reprinted here).
Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Rendiconti del Circolo matimatico di Palermo, 21, (1906, submitted July 23rd, 1905), pp. 129-176. English trans. by H. M. Schwartz, Amer. Jour. Of Phys. 39, (November, 1971), 1287-1294; 40, (June, 1972), 1282-1287; 40, (September, 1972), 1282-1287.
E. Cunningham, The Principle of Relativity, CUP, (1914), p. 173
18. H. Minkowski, Annalen der Physik, 47, (1915), p. 938.
19. A. Einstein and J. Laub, Über die elektromagnetischen Grundgleichungen für bewegte Körper, Annalen der Physik, 26, (1908), p. 532.
20. D. Brian, Einstein, A Life, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, (1996), pp. 316-317.
21. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 29th, 1934.
22. S. Tolver Preston, Physics of the Ether, E. & F. N. Spon, London, (1875), p. 115.
23. S. Newcomb, On the Definition of the Terms Energy and Work, Philosophical Magazine, 5, 27, (1889), pp. 115-117, reprinted herein.
24. G. N. Lewis, A Revision of the Fundamental Laws of Matter and Energy, Philosophical Magazine, 16, (1908), pp. 707-717.
25. A. Bain, Logic, Vol. II, Longmans Green and Co., London, (1870), pp. 225, 389.
26. A. E. Dolbear, Matter, Ether and Motion, C. J. Peters & Son, Boston, 2nd Ed. (1894), p. 345.
27. R. J. Boscovich, A theory of Natural Philosophy, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, (1966), p. 21.
28. Roger Cotes, Cote's preface to the second edition of Newton's Principia. [Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and his System of the World, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, pp. XX-XXXIII.]
29. G. and A. Ewing, and W. Smith, Sir Isaac Newton's: Account of the Aether, S. Powell, Dublin, (1745), 'The Preface',
"Sir Isaac Newton discovered the Aether soon after he became acquainted with the properties, actions and motions of corporeal things by experiments and observations."
30. Emil Cohn stated the principle of relativity and discussed its heuristic value, and addressed Fresnel's coefficient of drag, the relativistic Doppler Effect and aberration. Furthermore, he stated that the aether was superfluous, in agreement with Mill, Ostwald, Blavatsky, Bucherer, Poincaré, and (much later) the Einsteins, etc. See: The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol II, Princeton U. Press, (1989), pp. 260-261, and p. 307, note 6.
E. Cohn, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Systeme, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, der physikalisch-mathematischen Classe, (1904), 1294-1303.
E. Cohn, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Systeme. II, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, der physikalisch-mathematischen Classe, (1904), 1404-1416.
E. Cohn, Ueber die Gleichungen des elektromagnetischen Feldes für bewegte Körper, Annalen der Physik, 7, (1902), pp. 29-56. "(Aus den Nachrichten d. Gesellsch. D. Wissensch. zu Göttingen, 1901, Heft 1; Sitzung vom 11. Mai 1901. Mit einer Aenderung p. 31.)"
E. Cohn, Über die Gleichungen der Elektrodynamik für bewegte Körper, Johannes Bosscha, ed., RECUEIL DE TRAVAUX OFFERTS PAR LES AUTEURS À H. A. LORENTZ PROFESSEUR DE PHYSIQUE À L'UNIVERSITÉ DE LEIDEN À L'OCCASION DU 25ME ANNIVERSAIRE DE SON DOCTORAT LE 11 DÉCEMBRE 1900. LA HAYE, MARTINUS NIJHOFF. 1900. ARCHIVES NÉERLANDAISE DES SCIENCES EXACTES ET NATURELLES SÉRIE II, TOME V. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, (1900), pp. 516-523.
31. A. A. Michelson, The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous ether, American Journal of Science, 22, (1881), pp. 128-129.
George F. Barker, An Account of Progress in Physics and Chemistry in the Year 1881., from the Smithsonian Report for 1881, Government Printing Office, Washington, (1883), pp. 29-30.
A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science, 34, (1887), p. 333.
A. A. Michelson, Studies in Optics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (1928), pp. 156-166.
32. M. Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, The Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books, New York, (1999). This work provides numerous insights into Albert and Mileva's lives.
G. J. Whitrow, Einstein, the man and his achievement, Dover, New York, (1973), pp. 21-22.
33. T. Pappas, Mathematical Scandals, Wide World Publishing/Tetra, San Carlos, California, pp. 121-129.
Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric, Im Schatten Albert Einsteins, Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Maric, 5th Ed., Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern-Stuttgart-Wien, (1993), p. 97.
Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord, Oxford University Press, New York, (1982), p. 47.
Abraham Pais, Einstein Lived Here, Oxford University Press, New York, (1994), pp. 14-16.
J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 1, Princeton University Press, (1987), p. 282, letter from Albert to Mileva,
"How happy and proud I will be, when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end!"
"Wie glücklich und stolz werde ich sein, wenn wir beide zusammen unsere Arbeit über die Relativbewegung siegreich zu Ende geführt haben!"
34. A. F. Joffe, In Remembrance of Albert Einstein, Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk, 57, (1955), p. 187. Special thanks to my wife, Kristina, for her assistance in the translation.
. . , , , 57, (1955), . 187.
35. Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric, Im Schatten Albert Einsteins, Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Maric, Paul Haupt, Bern & Stuttgart, (1983), p. 79.
36. A. Pais, Einstein Lived Here, Oxford University Press, New York, (1994), p. 15.
See also: A. Fölsing, Albert Einstein, A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), pp. 315, 375.
37. The Life and Mind of Albert Einstein, Videotape.
38. J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 1, Princeton University Press, (1987), p. 282, letter from Albert to Mileva.
39. D. Brian, Einstein, A Life, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, (1996), p. 33.
40. T. Pappas, Mathematical Scandals, Wide World Publishing/Tetra, San Carlos, California, p. 127.
41. P. Michelmore, Einstein, Profile of the Man, Dodd, Mead, New York, (1962), p. 35.
42. A. Fölsing, Albert Einstein, A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), p. 333.
43. P. Halsman, Einstein, A Centenary Volume, Harvard University Press, (1980), p. 27
44. P. Michelmore, Einstein, Profile of the Man, p. 75.
45. M. Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, The Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books, (1999), p. 100.
46. Carl Seelig, Albert Einstein, Europa Verlag, Zürich, (1960), p. 130.
47. C. Nordmann, L'illustration, April 15th, 1922.
48. Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger, March 23rd, 1921.
E. Gehrcke, Die Massensuggestion der Relativitätstheorie, and Kritik der Relativitätstheorie, Hermann Meusser, Berlin, (1924), p. 74.
49. E. Gehrcke, Die Massensuggestion der Relativitätstheorie, and, Kritik der Relativitätstheorie, both from Hermann Meusser, Berlin, (1924).
50. J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2, Princeton University Press, (1989), p. 44.
A. Fölsing, Albert Einstein, A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), p. 108-110.
51. M. Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, The Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books, New York, (1999), p. 170.
52. I. B. Cohen, Einstein, A Centenary Volume, Harvard University Press, (1980), p. 41.
53. Michele Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, the Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books, Penguin Putnam, New York, (1999), p. 69.
54. Michele Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, the Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books, Penguin Putnam, New York, (1999), pp. 78-79.
55. P. Michelmore, Einstein, Profile of the Man, Dodd, Mead, New York, (1962), p. 43.
56. Michele Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, the Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books, Penguin Putnam, New York, (1999), p. 244.
57. P. Michelmore, Einstein, Profile of the Man, Dodd, Mead, New York, (1962), p. 22.
58. A. Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, Open Court, La Salle and Chicago, (1979), pp. 48-51.
Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord, Oxford University Press, (1982), p. 131.
Stanley Goldberg, Understanding Relativity, (1984) pp. 107-108.
Compare to: Camille Flammarion, Lumen, Dodd, Mead, New York, (1897).
59. R. J. Boscovich, A Theory of Natural Philosophy, Supplement, Sec. I, Article 16 & Sec. II, Article 21, (herein reprinted).
60. Physics Today, 35, 8, August, (1982), p. 46.
61. R. S. Shankland, American Journal of Physics, 31, (1962), p. 47; 41, (1973), p. 895; 43, (1974), p. 464.
62. D. Brian, Einstein, A Life, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, (1996), p. 59.
63. D. Brian, Einstein, A Life, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, (1996), pp. 60-61.
64. M. White and J. Gribbin, Einstein, A Life in Science, Plume, New York, (1995), p. 123.
65. A. Fölsing, Albert Einstein, A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), p. 418.
66. E. E. Slossen, Easy Lessons in Einstein, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, (1921), p. vii.
67. This quote was brought to my attention in an anonymous e-mail--thank you, whoever you are!
68. M. von Laue, Das Relativitätsprinzip der Lorentztransformation, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, (1921), p. 48.
A. Einstein, Relativity, The Special and the General Theory, 2nd Ed., Crown Trade Paperbacks, New York, (1961), p. 34.
69. J. H. Poincaré, Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de L'Académie des sciences, 140, pp.1504-1508 (reprinted here).
70. W. Voigt, "Ueber das Doppler'sche Princip", Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen, (1887), p. 41; reprinted Physikalische Zeitschrift, 16, (1915), p. 381, (herein reprinted).
René Dugas, A History of Mechanics, Dover, New York, (1988), pp. 468, 484, 494.
H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952), p. 81.
Voigt demonstrated the invariance of the Group celeritas twenty years before Minkowski.
71. R. J. Boscovich, A Theory of Natural Philosophy, The M.I.T. Press, (1966), Back Cover.
72. D. Brian, Einstein, A Life, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, (1996), p. 61.
73. J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2, Princeton University Press, (1989), p. 255, Ref. 13.
74. M. Born, Physics in my Generation, 2nd rev. ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, (1969), p. 101.
75. D. Hilbert, Die Grundlagen der Physik, (Erste Mitteilung.) Vorgelegt in der Sitzung vom 20. November 1915., Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen, (1915), pp. 395-407.
76. Sir William Dampier, A History of Science and its Relations with Philosophy & Religion, Macmillan, CUP, 1936, p. 427.
77. Paul Gerber, Die räumliche und zeitliche Ausbreitung der Gravitation, Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik, Leipzig, 43, (1898), pp. 93-104.
78. J. v. Soldner, [Berliner] Astronomisches Jarhbuch für das Jahr 1804, p. 161, reprinted in Annalen der Physik, 65, (1921), p.593-604.
79. M. Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter, The Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books, New York, (1999), p. 69.
80. H. Dukas and B. Hoffmann, Albert Einstein, The Human Side, Princeton University Press, (1979), p. 38.
II. The Special Theory of Relativity Myth
"Everything is relative, that's the only thing absolute"--Auguste Comte
The special theory of relativity is fundamentally irrational and does not follow logically from its precepts, which precepts are demonstrably false. Ironically, it is not a relativity theory at all, but expresses pure absolutism.1 Mileva and Albert's 1905 paper is absolutist, with its universal constants, absolute laws of Nature, absolute rest and absolute motion. The Poincaré-Minkowski "space-time" of "nothing-moving" supposes a static four-dimensional manifold in which nothing moves, as the absolute entity of Nature, and expresses absolute intervals.
Mileva and Albert struggled to repeat Lorentz' absolutism of a stationary aether, from a positivistic perspective, which was a self-contradicting effort, for absolutes are ontological, as is the mathematics employed, and the Einsteins simply produced semantic distinctions from Lorentz' theory, with no real progress made toward a truly relativistic approach. On the other hand, Stallo, MacGregor, Love, Lange, Mach, Pearson, the brothers Friedlaender and many others strove for a generalized relativity theory, which would account for fields, rotations and accelerations, long before 1905, in an effort to discredit Newton's mythology of absolute space and time. However, they, too, confused abstract, metaphysical mathematics with observed physical reality, and were unsuccessful.
A few cursory remarks regarding the "theory of relativity" are in order, by way of introduction. There really is no such thing as the generic "theory of relativity". Throughout history, there have been many theories of relativity, some of which are ancient propositions. Some have asserted that there are fixed, or absolute, positions in space, such as the absolute center of the universe, or points within a hypothetical fluid claimed to "fill space", called the "aether", which fluid is the medium for light waves. Others, more rationally, asserted that what we call "space" is this fluid aether, forever straining in its struggle to become itself.
The absolutists would assert, for example, that the White House was at a fixed position in the universe on October 15th, 1999, at exactly 12:00 PM local time, and that place, among its 3 + 1 dimensions, has always existed in the universe and always will exist in the universe, whether the White House is there, or not. This is not a spot on the Earth, but a fixed position in "space", which the White House likely occupied only once and perhaps only for a mere instant of time.
Others, the true relativists, and in a different sense, the Cartesians, aver that only relative positions exist in the universe. They would assert that the White House is known by its position relative to the Earth and relative to those who look at it, and that its position has no meaning beyond these observed relationships of bodies, with 3 + 1 dimensions being nothing but the extension of changing forms, the rarefaction-expansion of densities-contractions, or vice versa. They would further assert that motion does not take place relative to a fixed place in space, but only relative to other moving things. This notion, that motion is the relative relationship between moving bodies, is an ancient notion.
Mileva and Albert dubbed their theory of the relative motion of bodies, which they published in 1905, the 'principle of relativity', but, though it is in part a quasi-kinematic theory, it is not in truth a relativity theory.
The term 'principle of relativity' was not original to the Einsteins. It was, in fact, a common term long before they entered the scene. It was found in German in Lange,2 Stallo,3 Violle,4 Poincaré,5 and the German translation, with notes by Felix Hausdorff,6 of Huygens' Seventeenth Century seminal paper on relativity theory, "Über die Bewegung der Körper durch den Stoss / Über die Centrifugalkraft", all before 1905. The term also appeared in many other languages, prior to 1905.
The principle of relativity basically states that if you are in unaccelerated motion with your surroundings, it appears to you that you are at rest. Copernicus expressed the sentiment, and Newton established its formalism, beginning with the Fifth Corollary to the Laws of Motion found in his Principia.
As an example of the principle, consider that if you sit on the Earth, it seems to you that you are at rest with the Earth, humbly watching the sky, and that the sun and moon appear to move around you--the Earth, each day, which is why people believed for thousands of years that the sun revolved around the Earth, while the Earth remained at absolute rest. Many peoples used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. If you were to sit in a smooth riding train, again you would feel as if you were at rest, and the world outside your window would be rushing past you. This psychological sensation of rest is a critical aspect of the special theory of relativity, which theory asserts that there is no absolute space, and thus no absolute rest, but only perceived rest, which perceived rest governs physical appearances--the conceptualization of measurements. Of course, it is not true that you and the Earth "rest" together in stressless unity. Step into an open manhole and you will soon perceive your motion--the motion of your surroundings--the pressure of the aether.
Toward the end of the Nineteenth Century, people began to believe that light always appeared to move at the same speed no matter how you measured it, whether you were "resting" or not. The principle of relativity was extended to include the idea, that whenever you try to measure the speed of light, by inference from the laws of refraction or aberration, or by a reflected, round trip voyage, the light you observe will always appear to travel at the same speed relative to you. To a person standing on the Earth, light from a moving comet appeared to travel at the same speed as light emitted from the person's own lantern.
This, at first, seems odd, because you might expect that the light from the comet would travel at the speed of light plus the speed of the comet relative to you. After all, if you throw a baseball at 90 mph from a car moving 100 mph at a person standing still on the side of the road, the baseball will move faster than if you were to throw it while standing still beside him on the road. Velocities add up! If you throw the baseball at 90 mph, in both cases relative to you, the pitcher, the catcher will catch a ball going 190 mph if you throw it from a car moving toward him or her at 100 mph, but only 90 mph if you are standing still relative to him or her (discounting other forces).
Light appeared not to work that way. Light was always clocked at the same speed no matter what the relative velocity of the source and the receiver to the medium might be. This conflicted with two assumptions, one: That aberration resulted from an aether at absolute rest; two: That the speed of light in space coming to us from distant planets, their moons, and the stars, was constant and was added to the motion of the Earth in an Euclidean fashion with the "resting space" of the "fixed" stars operating as an isotropic, homogenous medium for light propagation.
Before the "discovery" that light always appeared to travel at the same speed, Albert Michelson wanted to prove that light was a wave in the "aether", which fluid he believed filled space--effectively is space, and that the aether did not move together with the Earth, but, instead, that the Earth moved relative to the aether--that the Earth moved through the aether as the Earth traveled about the sun, like a ship circling a great sea. It was also believed that the Solar System, itself, had a definite motion through the aether. Since waves always travel at the same rate in their medium, their speed being a function of the density and elasticity of the medium, Michelson set out to detect the medium of light, the aether, by measuring light's speed compounded with the motion of the Earth through space--the aether, and at perpendiculars to that motion. The speed of the waves in the supposedly homogenous sea was presumed to be constant, and should have been compounded with the speed of the vessel--the Earth--if the Earth moved toward the light ray relative to the aether, and light's relative velocity should have been diminished by the Earth's motion relative to the aether, in the other direction. Michelson wanted to prove that the vessel was moving through the sea when he "pitched" light at a co-moving mirror and "caught it" when it returned.
Think of space as a pool of water, and light as waves in the water. Since waves always travel at the same rate in the same uniform swimming pool, if you throw a rock in the water and swim toward the waves, which waves move from the splash toward you, you will reach the waves in less time, than if you were to throw a rock in the water and stand still in the water and wait for the waves to reach you on their own. If a ship starting out in California sails towards a ship in Hawaii, the ship in Hawaii can hasten their meeting by sailing toward the approaching vessel.
Michelson believed that if he shined light from a source and moved toward the absolute position of the source where it emitted the light--that if he imparted a wave in the distant sea, and moved through the waters toward the initial position of wave disturbance in the sea--the light would reach him in less time than if he were to shine light from a source and not move through the aether toward the aethereal point of initial disturbance--the wave would reach him in less time if he sailed toward it, than it would if he were to rest in the water and wait for it to reach him. Michelson also believed that the time required for light to propagate from source to receiver increased should the receiver move away from the position of the source in the aether, where the source emitted its light. The result being, that the back and forth propagation of light emitted from points A to B, and reflected by a mirror back to A, occupies more time if A and B are co-moving in a rectilinear, uniform motion of translation through the aether, than it would if A and B were to rest in the aether, and the faster their motion with respect to the aether, the greater the time of round trip propagation. Should A and B co-move at a superluminal speed, the reflected light would have no chance to return to its source.
Michelson made critical mistakes in the formulation of his experiment of 1881,7 and was motivated by a false premise, common in his day, that aberration compelled an absolutely resting aether, unaffected by electromagnetic fields. His experiment failed. Lorentz presented the corrections needed in Michelson's formulation, maintaining a dubious belief that the aether was at absolute rest. Michelson tried again, in 1887,8 but again was unable to detect any relative motion between the Earth and the aether.
Michelson was shocked to discover that light always seemed to take the same time to travel from point A to point B and back to point A, whether points A and B moved through the aether, or not. If the swimmer remained still, the water remained still with him. If he moved, the water moved with him. It was exactly as if, when the swimmer swims towards, or away from, the waves from the rock he throws, the water moves with him as he swims, such that he would always reach the waves in the same time if he threw the rock the same distance, whether he swims towards the waves, away from the waves, or stands and waits. Michelson abandoned his belief in an absolutely resting aether and looked to Stoke's exposition on aberration.
FitzGerald, Larmor and Lorentz were not persuaded that the concept of an absolute resting aether had been discredited by Michelson's experiments. They set out to explain the inability of Michelson's experiment to detect the so-called "aether wind" through Boscovich's length contraction hypothesis, and eventually arrived at Voigt's positional transformation of 1887, with a different scale factor. Poincaré dubbed this Voigtish transformation the "Lorentz Transformation".
The Lorentz Transformation is like a foot race in which each runner leaves from the same starting line, at the same time, and each crosses the finish line at the same time as the other runners, NO MATTER HOW FAST EACH RUNS! One contestant may walk, one may jog, and one may sprint, but each crosses the finish line at the same moment--the finish line does not move, and each contestant moves at the same speed relative to the finish line, as speed is conceptualized through the measurements of apparatus at rest with respect to the individual racer, even though each contestant moves at a different speed relative to the other contestants. This can only be accomplished with some tricky math and even trickier conceptions regarding form, time, and simultaneity, but if we tolerate such unproven and physically contradicted mathematical abstractions, and we let each runner live in his or her reference frame, we can mathematically transform the race into a form of a complete tie, and it wouldn't matter if they each run at a different pace relative to the others. We can do anything with mathematics, for we control the definitions of the rules and the value of the symbols. That is why mathematics is a useful tool--it is an adaptable, but, one would hope, rational, implement of conceptualization. Mathematics is a language, which is meant to describe observation as concisely and precisely as is imaginable. It is a logical argument. Should one definition conflict with another, mathematics becomes nonsense. The program shuts down, and the programmer has to find the bug.
Poincaré asserted, for example, that the only way to explain the constant speed of light was with a new 'principle of relativity', by which, every person carries their own space with them, each swimmer carries the pool with him or her, and cannot move through the water, no matter how hard he or she strokes, such that waves in the water will always travel at the same rate relative to him or her. Not only can a person not move through space, but when boats pass by, they shrink, the faster they move, the more they shrink. And not only that, but the clocks on the boats, said clocks being naught but uniform motions, slow down, the faster a boat moves, the slower are the clocks on board. For, why should the clocks remain the same? The to and fro "uniform motions" of the "resting clocks" have been altered by their acceleration. The to and fro "uniform motions", clocks, are anisotropic between moving systems. Most strangely, two events which seem to happen at the same time to one person, with his or her space, seem to happen at different times relative to another person, with his or her space.
Poincaré called these bizarre contortions of space and time the "Lorentz Transformations", after Lorentz, who supposedly formalized them, which mathematical transformations theoretically transform space, time and simultaneity, in such a way that the speed of light remains constant for every observer, with his or her private relationship to the universe, which universe is supposedly a fixed, quadri-dimensional manifold--a rigid structure in which nothing moves, in which nothing changes--it is a still photograph in four dimensions--a four-dimensional statue.
Of course, there is no proof that the things the Lorentz Transformation requires to happen to form and time actually happen to space or time. The quadri-dimensional manifold is an abstract "rule", not a reality, and cannot be observed, for it does not exist. The Lorentz Transformation is rather an axiomatic, mathematical proposal, that if the bizarre contortions were to occur, then the speed of light would remain constant, as observed. Later observations, such as the infamous 'paradox of the twins' and the fact that moving stars appear as spheres and not ellipsoids, evince that the Poincaré interpretation of the Lorentz Transformation in fact does not occur, but I am walking in front of my story. . . .
The space each person supposedly carries with him or her is called his or her "inertial reference frame" or "inertial system", which concept was formalized and named by Ludwig Lange9 in 1885, and completely misunderstood by Mileva Einstein-Marity and Albert Einstein in 1905. An inertial system is determined through abstraction by theoretically laying down "rigid" rods in the directions of the Cartesian coordinates, xyz and measuring time t with a clock that sits still in the space of xyz--never mind that said "still clock" is a uniform motion. Moving rods or clocks won't work (even though the clock is itself a motion), because moving rods shrink and moving clocks run slow, even though all clocks must move--are motions. A system is also only considered inertial if bodies, subjected to no force, remain at rest, or uniform translatory motion with respect to the system's coordinates, which condition is not axiomatic, but must be met by empirical testing, rendering the definition of an inertial system circular, and, therefore, unscientifically meaningless.
One person's inertial reference frame becomes another person's inertial reference frame by way of the mathematical, magical Lorentz Transformation, if the other moves in uniform rectilinear translation with respect to the first, and vice versa. There is a prerequisite that no forces act upon the inertial reference frame. It is a prerequisite which is never met in reality--which can never be met, in reality.
Poincaré's 'principle of relativity', which is, in fact, a corollary to the myth of the absolute world, fails to take into account the fact that all bodies are surrounded by a medium. All bodies are in perpetual motion through the medium which surrounds them, and it is useful to consider the medium as a source of pressure, even though pressure exists only in words, being an anthropomorphic interpretation of universal change. (I can't change what we are, but I can draw attention to it.)
Newton considered inertia to be a force, but such a conception is self-defeating, for a "force" is not "inert". Newton's system is fundamentally irrational. He claimed that matter is inert, that matter can do nothing if subjected to no force, and in the same breath, claimed this impotence itself to be a "force". Des Cartes had argued, parroting Aristotle, that there is no "sufficient reason", to use Leibnitz' later phrase, for a thing to change, unless acted upon by something else. Newton took this rationalization as a metaphysical, no, theological force. Newton10 religiously argued that God allowed bodies which are at rest in God's body, space, to remain at rest, and, further, that it is God's will that bodies passing through His body, space, do so unimpeded in their motions. Since Newton attributed these states of inert matter, in relation to the universe at large, as dependent upon God's will, he claimed that these inertial states are, therefore, theological forces.
It was very poor, simplistic reasoning. If bodies are inert, and space is, for the sake of argument, empty, as Newton maintained in his Principia, then, for inert matter to resist motion, or to continue in motion, rationally requires that bodies be in themselves forces, and, therefore, the contrary of "inert". We must abandon Newton's nonsense and perhaps may conclude either that matter is not inert, but instead moves by itself and resists of its own force, or that space is a pressurized fluid and that inert matter obeys the whims of the polarity of pressure in the fluid of space; or that matter is not inert, but is itself a waveform propagating in the fluid of space; or that matter is a pseudo-structure of voids in a turbulent fluid of space. To assume that matter is inert, and yet a force, vis Inertiae, capable of acting at a distance as the forces of gravity and magnetism, is to speak in contradiction and to assign supernatural properties of force to that which is also assigned the nature of "inertness".
As in so many instances, Des Cartes and Newton come full circle to the dubious throne of Aristotle. What is considered logic, is, in fact, often the Petitio Principii of assuming conclusions as premises.
For Des Cartes, his assertions reduce to the absurdity that the universe does not change, for there is no sufficient reason for it to do so, without the artificial intervention of divine will. Aristotle, Aquinas, Des Cartes and Leibnitz simply place this dilemma two steps back and assert that God was the Prime Mover, and that all change stems from that first motion, and, further, that the universe as a whole does not change, but merely rearranges itself.
Newton saw the weakness in Des Cartes' argument, but did nothing to improve upon it. Newton believed that the sum of the "quantity of motion" in the universe (for Aristotle, Des Cartes, and Newton, the quantity of motion was momentum, for Leibnitz and Huygens, it was energy) could be increased or diminished, implying the winding down of the universal clock, and the necessary intervention of the divine will of the Creator to wind the watch work and keep the universe alive with motion.
Newton, in the 31st Query to his Opticks, second edition, calls the force of inertia a "passive principle",
"The vis Inertiae is a passive principle by which bodies persist in their motion or rest, receive motion in proportion to the force impressing it, and resist as much as they are resisted. By this principle alone there never could have been any motion in the world. Some other principle was necessary for putting bodies into motion; and now that they are in motion, some other principle is necessary for conserving the motion."
Clearly, the "passive principle" of a want of sufficient reason for change, is different from the active principles of resistance and force, and Newton contradicts himself. Newton's sufficient reason for both the active and the passive statement of vis Inertiae is God's will, God as the Sensorium of the universe, God as space and time. But, "God" is a term, not an observation. "God" is a desire for there to be a reason, not an understanding of the reason. Stating that "God" is the cause of the universe and of change, without exposing the nature of His actions, is simply giving the universe another name, and tacitly threatening those who ask for a more intelligible argument than faith with being stigmatized as "nonbelievers".
All that these men did was to put words to hollow assumptions, as though naming vague desires to know, were a valid substitute for knowledge, itself. Observing change, and assuming that change has a cause, then merely naming this assumption that change has a cause, "energy" or "God", does not define "energy" or "God". Observing that form exists and presents resistance to touch, then observing that what we identify as the same substance, changing from moment to moment, and giving the name "matter" to our wish for identity among change, does not define matter. Defining "matter" as "energy", or "energy" as "matter", creates a meaningless identity of two undefined terms, two wishes to know, which wishes we pretend are knowledge. Asserting that change cannot occur without change, while observing everything to change, is a truism, but one must look upon uniform motion then not as change, but as the human symbol of a pretentious state, a group of words without real meaning, and not a physical relation. Distinctions such as motion, form, unchanging substratum, etc. are purely artificial and result from the Petitio Principii argument that inertia is the want of a sufficient reason for change, and that there is supposedly no sufficient reason why motion should diminish.
Newton, likewise, returned to Aristotle's theological argument of first motion, the creation of energy--cause, with his watch work universe of theological "forces". Heraclitus had the argument the right way about, and took change as an axiom, with the universe arising from change, perpetually. Hume considered the dogma of cause and effect to be an anthropomorphic pretense, like a small child picking up a stone and saying, "look at the happy rock!"
* * *
The motion of bodies through their surrounding medium creates a greater system of motion, in that the moving body becomes a lesser part of a greater heat-wave propagating in the medium. Nothing exists as a kinematic ideal. Kinematic ideals are, rather, the Platonic denial of observed reality.
Think of space as air, a fluid medium, and all bodies exist as sound waves in this continuous "air apparent". It is impossible to separate the motion of bodies from their wave-nature in this medium of space. How do we define and/or detect this medium of existence? Isn't space just empty, nothing? Many facts indicate that space is actually a fluid, which holds bodies in a state of buoyancy, like ships in the ocean. We tend to forget that the buoyancy of a floating ship is a function not only of sea and slip, but of air and "empty" space, by far, mostly "empty" space. This medium is, perhaps, not a fluid of particles and voids, but rather a fluid of waves, without voids, only differences--polarities--with the "force of inertia" being the status of a propagating wave, which status is preserved unless acted upon by a "force", which status is the sum of forces in the medium creating form--the body wave. Bodies form waves in the fluid when they move, and bodies are always in motion through the fluid. The very existence of bodies is thought by some to be waves and/or flows and/or turbulence in the fluid of space. The wave disturbances, which result from the perpetual motion of bodies, displace other bodies by changing the polarity of their motions, often towards, or away from, the source of the disturbance, just as reflective surfaces change the polarity of motion of light and sound waves.
The fallacy of "empty space" is the natural result of our psychological make-up and our language of contraries. We assign to that which gives us direct sense experience the property of being, and for that which does not yield to us direct sensual experience, we claim a lack of being, finding only "void" between those things felt and seen, our lover is missing in the night, and we find traces of her in the curved felt. In constructing our conceptualization of space, we imagine that areas of our view, which yield darkness, are areas of nothingness, and spaces, which render no pressure on our sense of touch, are likewise areas of nothingness. We confuse internal sensation with the existence or nonexistence of externals. As infants, we form conceptual associations between touch and sight and generate consciousness as a tridimensional internal reality, which we mistakenly project metaphysically as being a mirror of physical reality. From this conceptual construct comes the inspired delusion of "empty space". However, the phenomena we observe disclose to us the existence of some thing in that region of our conscious construct, which yields to us no direct sensual experience. It is only natural to liken this stuff of the unseen to that which is seen, and maintain a pure philosophy of the state of our being, if only to keep from contradicting ourselves. We call this stuff, "aether" and observe it through its effects.
What we conceive of as a brick of plutonium, may be no different from a similar displacement of "empty space", other than in its polarities and rates of motion. One is perhaps a choppy sea, the other, the calm waters of the deep.
Given two bodies in relative motion, the heat-wave of each takes on a different form depending on the state of each in its surrounding medium, which state is independent of the relative motion between the two bodies, and which state can vary greatly, even under the same condition of their relative motion. Therefore, purely relative motion is shown to be a fallacy, whereby, we pretend that one relation accounts for all relations.
The concept of purely relative motion asserts that if I see you moving faster relative to me, you are actually moving faster, per se, and if we collide, the faster we move relative to each other, the more energy we will have when we hit each other. The concept of purely relative motion also asserts that this addition of velocities, and the impact which may result from it, is independent of the medium of space and takes the same form under all circumstances of the same relative motion. In other words, if two cars run into each other, it doesn't matter if one is going 100 mph relative to the road and hits a parked car, or if two cars moving relative to the road head on at 50 mph each. 50 + 50 = 100. But, as I shall demonstrate, the concept of purely relative motion is an unfortunate fallacy, as evinced by the positions of the cars, relative to the road, after collision.
For example, consider a small tug boat and an ocean liner. Further consider that a relative motion occurs between the two, in that they approach each other. This expression of relative motion discounts the medium (the water) through which they move, and by moving, disturb, and in which each becomes part of a greater heat-wave, when each moves through the medium.
If the tug remains relatively still in the water, it does not form much of a heat-wave, which will have an impact on the ocean liner, should the two impact with each other. However, should the ocean liner move toward the tug, the ocean liner will greatly disturb the medium (the water), and will become part of an immense heat-wave, which will have a powerful effect on the tug, should the two impact with each other. Constructive and/or destructive wave interference is discounted when we discount the medium of existence.
Under the reverse conditions, with the ocean liner at comparative rest in the water, and the tug moving through the water towards the ocean liner, the same relative motion of the tug and the ocean liner moving toward each other occurs as in the first case, but the results of the impact will be quite different, contrary to the concept of purely relative motion. We forget that each vessel is an ephemeral wave form, and not an ideal, inert lump of something-nothing.
The moving tug will produce a much smaller heat-wave in the water, than would the moving ocean liner. The impact of the tug-wave into the ocean liner is not the same as the impact of the ocean liner-wave into the tug. Purely relative motion is a fallacy.
Boats "at rest" have a hard time accelerating in the water. Moving boats have a hard time stopping. The water creates inertia and momentum, and the medium of space creates inertia and momentum, which inertia and momentum render impossible purely relative motion. More on this later. . .
If we assume, as Newton would have us do, that matter is inert, and further assume, as Newton would not have us do, that space is void and motion purely relative, then many absurdities arise in experiments.
Consider Karl Pearson's line segment thought experiment.12 Sketch a line from point A to point B. In the middle of the line, add two points separated by a short distance, points C and D. In physical space, we will find that if we cut the line between C and D, the two segments AC and DB will sometimes remain in relative rest, and sometimes will fly apart from each other.
If, for example, we conceptualize the line as rotating, the two pieces will fly apart, unless we further conceptualize that the "rotation" is a delusion brought on by the actual motions of the surroundings, such as spinning a sling about your head does not make your hair stand on end, but should you drop the sling and spin it through "your motion", by dancing around in a circle, not only will your hair leap from its limp indifference, but the stone will become obstinate and refuse to leave the sling!
None of these observable phenomena can be explained by the concept of purely relative motion of inert matter in "empty space", but each is immediately explained, metaphysically and physically, by the hypothesis of a medium, which medium conceptually fulfills abstract geometry, and without the absurdities of geometrical versus kinematic measurements found in the inane special theory of relativity.
Mileva and Albert repeated Poincaré's 'principle of relativity', years later, and unfairly took credit for it. This theory of the constant speed of light came to be known as the "special theory of relativity", upon submission of the "general theory of relativity". Albert wrote in the introduction to his 1916 paper on the general theory of relativity,
"The theory set forth in what follows constitutes the most far reaching generalization imaginable of what is today generally designated the 'theory of relativity'; in what follows, I name the latter the 'special theory of relativity' in order to differentiate it from the former and take it for granted."
"Die im nachfolgenden dargelegte Theorie bildet die denkbar weitgehendste Verallgemeinerung der heute allgemein als ,,Relativitätstheorie" bezeichneten Theorie; die letztere nenne ich im folgenden zur Unterscheidung von der ersteren ,,spezielle Relativitätstheorie" und setze sie als bekannt voraus."
In science, theories which cover a limited range are called "special" cases or theories, and those which apply themselves generally to all cases are called "general" theories. Since the special theory of relativity applied only to abstract inertial frames of reference and abstract absolute space, it was not general, and did not apply to rotations and gravitation--forceless, forced accelerations in general. As Albert phrased it in section one of his 1916 paper on the generalization of the theory,
"The special theory of relativity is founded upon the following postulate, which is also satisfied by Galilean-Newtonian mechanics: If a system of coordinates K is chosen such that, with respect to it, physical laws are valid in their simplest form, then these same laws are also valid with respect to every other system of coordinates K', which is engaged in a uniform, translatory motion relative to K. We call this postulate the "special principle of relativity". By the word "special" one is to understand that the principle is limited to the case, where K' executes a uniform, translatory motion in comparison with K, but that the equivalence of K' and K not refer to the case of non-uniform motion of K' with respect to K."
"Der speziellen Relativitätstheorie liegt folgendes Postulat zugrunde, welchem auch durch die Galilei-Newtonsche Mechanik Genüge geleistet wird: Wird ein Koordinatensystem K so gewählt, daß in bezug auf dasselbe die physikalischen Gesetze in ihrer einfachsten Form gelten, so gelten dieselben Gesetze auch in bezug auf jedes andere Koordinatensystem K', das relativ zu K in gleichförmiger Translationsbewegung begriffen ist. Dieses Postulat nennen Wir ,,spezielles Relativitätsprinzip". Durch das Wort ,,speziell" soll angedeutet werden, daß das Prinzip auf den Fall beschränkt ist, daß K' eine gleichförmiger Translationsbewegung gegen K ausführt, daß sich aber die Gleichwertigkeit von K' und K nicht auf den Fall ungleichförmiger Bewegung von K' gegen K erstreckt."
Albert, again reiterating what Weber, Lange, MacGregor, Gerber, Poincaré, de Sitter, Mie, Hilbert and others had earlier accomplished, broadened the special theory and set forth a general theory to account for gravity and rotations.
These are but two of countless relativity theories, some of which date back at least to the time of the Greeks. The Greeks were less pretentious--more competitive--than we are today. It is doubtful if they would have stepped off the cliff, smiling in obeisance, as we do today, following the legend of a mad leader, like the imitative clown, Albert Einstein. The Greeks had no reason to pretend that the irrational was rational. They were free--even if their slaves were not.
I will use the expression, "the special theory of relativity" to generically express the modern, institutional dogma regarding inertial motion, and "relativity" in general in a broader sense encompassing all periods of thought on the subject of relative motion and relational existence.
The special theory of relativity makes the following assertions: time, space (Albert did not make claim that space was relative, but Poincaré and Minkoski did, and Albert was later persuaded to adopt the view), motion and simultaneity are relative. For the pseudo-relativist who adheres to the special theory of relativity, there is no such reality as "absolute" time, space, motion or simultaneity (please refer to the section herein on Newton for the definitive explanation of relative and absolute), except for the world postulate of absolute intervals and Lorentz invariants in the theoretical absolute world of "space-time". In other words, the special theory of relativity is an absolutist theory disguised as a relativity theory. When a semantic distinction is made from an absolute, without changing the underlying nature of the image, as is the case in the special theory of relativity, the underlying belief--myth, remains, pure absolutism--God as existence immutable, God as numbers, and not God as the gentle tolerance of each other, with our differences, and our innate beauty. Since the special theory of relativity is absolutist, it is not science, but a religion. It is political conformity to a limiting ideal, the myth of the absolute world--with the tacit fatalistic assumption that we cannot destroy ourselves, but merely follow God's will, Albert's folly--right off the face of the cliff. Science takes nothing as absolute. Science is skeptical and progressive, not faith based, not religious.
The truly relativistic line of thought is found in Aristotle, and Aristotle's documentation of others, such as Heraclitus, with his Logos universe (dynamic change as opposed to the absolute of static space-time), and Zeno, with his rest arrow in flight (beyond-inertial reference frame) and paradoxes of motion, and is an oft repeated refrain throughout recorded history. Relativity theory was not only known to the Greeks, it was developed to an extent that Albert was never able even to copy in a cogent fashion, let alone fully comprehend.
Heraclitus was caught in the tangling web of the contraries of language. He envisioned their reduction to an absurdity as the revelation of truth. I wonder if Heraclitus poetically wondered why he twice asked the same questions, and twice arrived at the same absurdities, twice wondered at the wet clothes he bore as a man, less than the universe, stepping into itself, wondering at himself, chewing at Adam's apple, wet with wonder, fully clothed before the slippery bark of the ephemeral tree of knowledge, like Socrates, proud to know that he did not know, how he had changed, only to realize that, knowing, he had changed, how, unknown, as if not knowing, speculation itself, moved the unmoving reluctantly to motion, the great pain of fear forcing forth the forever, which is forever unknown, as the love of knowledge, a perfectly beautiful lover never to be embraced, but to be wished for, forever, and in wishing, walks the river, never twice alone, never once without the wish.
The Greeks felt a need to resolve the issue of contraries, and to define logically what constitutes mental relations and conscious awareness. Contraries are opposites, like hot and cold, up and down, good and evil, or black and white. Some asserted that contraries are in fact not contrary, but are merely distinct, that black is different from white, but not opposite white.
Heraclitus resolved contraries through the process of synthesis found in the dialectic method. He asserted that all known things are mere relations. "The way up the stairs is the way down the stairs." "Hot is cold." A lonely lover cannot withdraw dry from the same river he dreamed, unsame, for he reviles himself. For Heraclitus, contraries were not opposites and were not distinct, but were two aspects of the same thing, the lonely Self categorizing its observations of change, the evaporation of death into forever. The humble wish for a son who resembles his father, unfulfilled forever.
The Greeks, in general, believed that consciousness exists as the relations of images and that motion exists as the change in relations of objects, the natural affinity of Nature to arrive at itself, even perpetually. Heraclitus asserted that a person cannot step into the same river twice, for fresh waters are always rushing in on him or her, the infant duality. In order to perceive change, and motion necessitates change, one must conceive of at least two objects for the mind to conceive of there being any motion, for one object cannot change position in relation to nothing, but an object can only change position relative to something else. Motion is the mental image of a change of relation between objects.
What was here is now there. Hence, it has moved, or everything else has moved about it. Both here and there are not absolute places, but are objects, which can themselves move. Here may be an airport in Paris and there may be an airport in Los Angeles, but here and there are never absolute positions in the universe, because the airports themselves are known to move relative to the sun, and the sun moves relative to the "fixed stars". Motion is a change of relation of moving bodies, and not a change of absolute position, or so it would seem.
According to the Greek relativists, the absolute, reality beyond our perception of relation, does not exist to us. All things are relative! Nothing is absolute, except change!
This style of relativity theory was the predominate, generally accepted theory before Isaac Newton, and remained the predominate theory after Newton. It was chiefly Newton who interjected the myths of absolutivity into physics. His pantheism was to blame. It was his quasi-religious armor to keep the moths of the church from nibbling away at the tapestry of life he wove with frail human fingers. He believed that absolute space and time are the body and breath, or force, of God, or so he asserted, and the church let him be.
Tertullian12 instituted this belief in pantheism as one of the first Roman-Christian beliefs and went so far as to corrupt the ancient and the then-modern scriptures, through mistranslation from Hebrew and Greek into Latin. God was, for Tertullian, the inanimate body of the material universe, the flesh of form, quite literally the material body of God. The universe, God as the duality of breath and flesh, was, for Tertullian, a Roman bulwark, a fuming, wrathful beast--a man. Marcion13 saw a gentler image in the white robe of Christ, a promise of peace, and the death of hate--the birth of the Son of a new God. Marcion declared the vengeful God of the Old Testament our enemy, and found in Jesus our salvation, not from ourselves, but from the vindictiveness of the old God. Marcion, like unlike Arius, they called a "heretic", and doubted that man had in him something better than a hateful old God. Tertullian brought Rome to God by making God a man, and not man, a god.
The Holy "Wind" of Hebrew () and Greek () scripture, became, through Tertullian's deliberate mistranslation into Latin, Spiritus, or Holy "Breath", which material Divine Breath animated the material body of God and allowed the universe to move and live. Adam was a miniature replication of the universe, which is also to say that the universe replicates man, and it took the Divine Breath, Spiritus, to animate the material image of God, the flesh of man.14 Newton was familiar with Tertullian's views. Though Newton, himself, was a devout Arian.15 God was not a man, nor the legend of an ideal man, for God was all and all was God, immutable and perfect, a lover who would never leave the baroque watch work of Newton's imagination, a predictable God, who had always lain beside man, through the dark danger of being, alone. Newton was afraid, afraid to admit that the river flowed. He was an absolutist who depended upon absolute laws, which he alone could write. He was a scribe sharing with a candle the darkness and the light of his verses of a God like him.
St. Jerome and the Vulgate set Tertullian's mistranslation in stone. It became the sunken cornerstone upon which the trinity theory was built. Newton accepted God as space and force, but not as Jesus Christ, not as compassion, but as abstract and simple law, to be imposed on the weak, the confused flotsam of matter, by an all-compelling force. In Newton's day, the pantheism of early Roman-Christians had long since been Hellenized, Romanized and made superstitious, and the Latin Holy "Breath" which animated the otherwise lifeless material body of God, Tertullian's law, and the force of inhuman justice, became Holy "Ghost" and Holy "Spirit" in German and English mistranslations, in contradistinction to the Hebrew immaterial God and Holy Wind, which pervade the Old and New Testaments in their original tongues.
Another example of early, quite early, Christian pantheism is found in St. John's account of Genesis, which, correctly translated, reads, "In the beginning was the 'Fire', and the 'Fire' was with God, and the 'Fire' was God." The Logos of John refers to the universal "Fire" of Heraclitus, and not the vain "Word" of the priests (refer to Philo Judaeus for evidence of the fact), as appears in the Vulgate and later mistranslations, patterned after it, nor the Reason of Tertullian, the sophistic and unfair lawyer, who likened God to himself.
Heraclitus conceived of the universe as an eternal flame of change, or, as he called it, "Logos". St. John changed the thrust of the Hebrew creation of the Earth into a pantheistic God of flux, without a beginning. This pantheism is repeated in the mandate that God be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present. Isaac Newton was devoted to the concept of a pantheistic God, and felt that the Church had done great harm to religion, by such myths as the Trinity theory.
The mere act of translating Hebrew to Greek, begun in the Septuagint, Hellenized Hebrew images into the superstitious images of Greek thinkers, and apparently, there is no turning back. The Vulgate mistranslation created a new doctrine of "semanticology" or the worship of supposedly Divine Words. The priests were the keepers of the semantic, and thus became the interpreters of God. The mistranslation of Logos as "Word", from the fiery change of the cosmos, to obedience to a book--obedience to the priests who read the book, resulted in tremendous power for the growing Church. Most people were illiterate, and, later, could not even understand spoken Latin. That God should be words, and foreign words no less, made the priests who spoke and understood those words supernatural figures--even though the words had been corrupted to place power in the pompous hands of the priests.
What was initially an effort to justify Judaism to the Greeks and Romans, as being a Greek-like religion, and therefore respectable (Greek culture was the most respected culture of the ancient world and Greek was the standard language of cultured people from many lands), resulted in a superstitious, pantheistic religion, encoded in a foreign tongue, which unfamiliar "Word[s]" were claimed to be God encoded, God incarnate in dust and darkness, the hollow thump of an empty book on a cold, stone pedestal, the prattlings of a priest's demands for more gold and for more lands.
The phenomenon of "semanticology", or worship of the "Word" as God, finds its parallel in the numerology of modern relativity theory, which is based on the language of mathematics, cannot be explained in the common tongue, and requires a priest for translation, which translation never reveals the "counter-intuitive truth" of the false mathematics.
Much of the current mess began when Galileo Galilei attempted to convince the Roman Catholic Church that we should abandon the Ptolemaic system of planetary motion, which asserted that the Earth was at rest in the universe, and that the planets and Sun turned around the Earth, in accord with Aristotle's assertions. Galileo asked us to accept the "Copernican" system, which placed the Sun at the center of the Solar System, with the Earth moving about the Sun.
Galileo devised numerous ingenious experiments to show the effects of inertia and momentum, in a naïve effort to prove to the Church that it was possible for the Earth to move without our being aware of it, as Copernicus had argued. Galileo sought to convince his readers that uniform motion was undetectable. These notions of uniform motion are today called the "Galilean Principle of Relativity", but Copernicus, and seemingly countless others, had illustrated them before Galileo, using the example of a ship and sailors in uniform motion, with the sailors' imagining themselves to be at rest, and imagining the banks and trees, which passed by them, to be moving. Copernicus argued that there are stars which are infinitely distant from us, and which would, therefore, require an infinite velocity to rotate about the Earth in twenty-four hours, which was an impossibility, an obvious absurdity.
Huygens formalized and universalized Copernicus' thesis of relative motion, ignoring the dilemma of the infinite velocities, which result from the rotations of frames of reference. Newton, then much later Carl Neumann16 and Heinrich Streintz,17 would reopen the question and assert that rotations in some sense reveal absolute space, through the disclosure of the absurdities, which absurdities are common in relativity theory.
Huygens asserted that motion was purely relative. He showed that if persons on a passing boat exchanged pendulums with persons standing "still" on the shore, the only effect observed was the relative motion of the pendulums, with no absolute velocity observed or understood in the interaction between observable happenings.
Newton attacked Huygens' relativism. Newton, very much a mystic, revived the earliest of Christian pantheistic beliefs in the material universe as God, moving with breath, and set the world back more than a thousand years. Newton's God, he called "absolute space" and "absolute time", and "absolute" carried with it many religious and authoritarian connotations in those days.
The supposedly divine nature of space, time, motion and "actions at a distance" (gravity and magnetism) discussed in Newton's day bear a striking resemblance to the numerology of the "modern" general theory of relativity. [Spinoza, Philo Judaeus and Heraclitus will be addressed in detail in a subsequent volume to this work, which will treat the pre-Newtonian period.] Newton confessed that he had not a single clue as to what caused gravity, and hinted that it should be understood as a divine force, the will of the all-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, All-Mighty, or as the mundane action of an intervening medium, Huygens' aether. It was a peculiar pattern of Newton's, to criticize, then copy. He railed against Des Cartes' vortical explanation of gravitation, then returned to it in the form of Aristotle's notion of an intervening aether, finding its natural place in the plenum, with fire rising and feet, falling.
There is, perhaps, more to the story. There were veiled threats and religious hairs beings split on the bald steps of the Church in the political debate taking place between Continental and British philosophers. Both sides were under the sword, and the thin thread which restrained the heavy sword of persecution, if not execution, was precariously pinched between the slimy fingers of a fickle and fanatical church. Both sides (principally More versus Des Cartes and Newton versus Leibnitz) were forced to adopt sophism as the only defense, for they could not speak freely. I assume that both sides required that their more sophisticated readers read between the lines, while unfairly demanding that their opposition's words be taken literally. These were not stupid, fanatical, or ridiculous men. These were men who were inhibited by a climate of persecution and ridicule. They weren't gods, but they weren't as silly as their religious tirades tend to indicate.
In order to provide a non-religious understanding of gravity, the private Newton plagiarized the works of Aristotle, Des Cartes, Hobbes and Huygens, when Newton wrote to his friend Bentley of the aether of space (aether is the water, which fills the swimming pool of space, and which supposedly carries light waves), in virtually identical words to Aristotle's, Des Cartes', Hobbes' and Huygens' earlier writings, and described gravity as an Aristotelian displacement of aether, which aether supposedly also conducts nerve impulses in the body, the attenuated humor of sense experience.
The public Newton seemingly opposed a belief in aether, in that Newton permitted Roger Cotes to deny that space was an aether in the preface to Newton's Principia, and to aver that a belief in the aether was an occult belief--bearing with it the threat of torture and death from an insecure and intolerant Church. This denial of the aether was quite significant, in that it left space as nothing other than a meaningless supernatural superstructure from which to judge relative motion, rendered position purely mathematical, and not physical, which was obviously an irrational and anthropomorphic conclusion. How can something be nothing? How can nothing be something? This theory further presumed that gravity acted from one body upon another, with no intervening medium, except, perhaps, the will of supernatural forces, and only then, in a divinely inexplicable way, leaving gravity a divine mystery, and those who would pursue its causes, heretics, sorcerers, witches and general consorters with the devil. This pattern of negative labeling continues today, when authorities stigmatize those who question institutional, dogmatic beliefs--those who would pursue the physical processes of gravitation and electromagnetism.
Questioning the cause of gravity was like questioning the logic of the Trinity, in some minds (Newton did both, and somehow got away with it! But he was increasingly censored and misrepresented as he grew older.). This weapon of alleging heresy was a very real threat in the world of Galileo and Newton, and both those on the Continent and in England were in danger of torture and death should they venture from the dogma of their respective established churches. It is no coincidence that Newton published his Principia in 1686, soon after the death of Charles II. It was the year of the death of Royal Catholicism in England.
Leibnitz accused Newton of occult beliefs, claiming that the notion of action at a distance--universal gravitation, was a supernatural love call--an occult belief. Continental philosophers also pointed out that Newton's belief in universal love was found among the Greeks (in Empedocles), and was, therefore, less than original. Cotes was perhaps reacting to the Continent more than he was genuinely expressing Newton's beliefs, when Cotes called a belief in the aether an occult belief. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, even if it is less than sincere!
Newton's Principia was almost entirely unoriginal, deriving its first principles from Aristotle, via Hobbes and Des Cartes, and its kinematics from, among many others, Kepler, Huygens and Leibnitz. It was a theological and metaphysical work devoted to finding God in the form of absolute space and time. It was a step backward into theological forces, which beliefs are today so pervasive in our language and images, that we fail to see that they are religious, and not physical, beliefs. Our concept of motion changed from the anthropomorphic insistence on perpetual tension between resistance and impetus, to the mystical delusions of inertia and force.
The Royal Society claimed priority for Newton's stolen ideas by denying the aether, which served on the Continent as the universal substratum for the equations of mechanics, and by copying the math, while providing no physical explanation as to what was occurring physically so as to justify the math. Pure mathematics is not a physical science, but a rational language of symbols--entirely abstract and physically meaningless. In Newton's myths, Physics was to become an algebra without a geometric reality behind it. To add insult to injury, Newton claimed that it was foolish to try to understand the equations, which he stole from the Continent, on the grounds that a true scientist should "form no hypotheses!" This is a Baconian belief, that only God knows what is happening, and therefore it is better not to try to understand to much, lest we offend God, which approach evolved into the anti-human, anti-scientific, political bureaucracy of "positivism" and worse still, "logical positivism". Newton claimed priority for Continental ideas by denying physical causes, while pirating equations and mathematical procedures. Albert Einstein would later do exactly the same, only in his case, even the modus operandi was unoriginal, having been pioneered by Newton and reduced to an absurdity by the positivists, Comte and Pearson.
Newton thought that Huygens' principle of relativity was metaphysical nonsense. Newton believed that all motion was displacement in the absolute space of God's body. He asserted that Huygens' principle only held good in a system devoid of absolute acceleration, but that God materialized whenever one body accelerated relative to another, as rocking a boat on a still lake disturbs the waters. Under the lamp of acceleration, claimed Newton, God could be seen, and Newton devoted his entire work, the books of the Principia, to the vain search for God's body--absolute position.
According to Newton, Huygens' principle of relativity left unclear the nature of relative motion. What if one body is subject to force, while another body is not, or vice versa? Force is the unseen hand of God pushing mass through His lungs! Purely relative motion is not possible, claimed Newton, because it is demonstrably different depending upon the application of force to one body, or to the other.
Des Cartes believed that the transference of motion, what we consider today as the exchange of energy, was a reciprocal process, in anticipation of the law of action-reaction, whereby contiguous bodies affect each other equally and oppositely when they transfer motion,
"For the transference is reciprocal; and we cannot conceive of the body AB being transported from the vicinity of the body CD without also understanding that the body CD is transported from the vicinity of the body AB, and that exactly the same force and action is required for the one transference as for the other."18
Newton's laws of motion are Aristotelian and are a reaction to Huygens and Des Cartes, making a distinction without a real difference, semantically substituting sufficient reason, or the want thereof, with the meaningless term "God". Des Cartes set forth his relativistic notions of motion in his Principles of Philosophy, Part II. Henry More stated, in reaction to Des Cartes' law of reciprocity,
"If I am sitting quietly, and someone else, moving a thousand paces away from me, reddens with fatigue, it is certainly he who moves and I who rest."19
Henry More ignored Des Cartes' stipulation that the transfer of motion-energy-momentum is a reciprocal process of contiguous bodies, including the "inertia" of bodies moving through the aether. Therefore, More's counter-argument against Des Cartes is a fallacy, for he is arguing with a red-faced strawman, but More's argument is quite legitimate in defeating the supposed reciprocity of the special theory of relativity, in which relative motions are inexplicably congruous and incongruous, inexplicably representing universal inertial systems.
In Newton's myths, if God impels force against body A and does not change the forces acting on body B, then body A accelerates relative to God, or absolute space, they do not accelerate relative to each other, per se, but one accelerates relative to God and hence to all other bodies! If, on the other hand, God impels force against body B and does not change the forces acting on body A, then body B accelerates relative to God, or absolute space, again, they do not accelerate relative to each other, per se, but one accelerates relative to God and hence to all other bodies! Huygens' myth of reciprocal relativity only holds true when two identical bodies collide and part with an equal and opposite reaction, or when God refrains from changing the forces which hold all bodies in relative motion through God's body. The special theory of relativity fails for the same reasons as does Huygens' principle of relativity, as will be shown, and, in its many forms, remains a theory of absolute motion, ultimately reducing motion to the fixed absurdity of motionless space-time.
To summerize: The 'Principle of Relativity' in Galileo's writings was an effort to convince the Roman Catholic Church to abandon the Ptolemaic system and adopt the "Copernican" system. "And yet it moves!" Galileo sought to demonstrate that we, together with the Earth, could move through the heavens, and yet be unaware of it. Huygens generalized the principle. Newton objected to Huygens' conclusions, on religious and other grounds. This is clear in Newton's Pincipia. Newton asserted that the relativity principle was a fallacy.
Newton felt that all force was absolute, the action of God. Our confusion as to the source of force is due, according to Newton, to our movements relative to God, our utter lack of absolute rest. They were all under the spell of Aristotle, with his ontological and religious laws of motion and creation. For Newton, God reveals himself as the antithesis of the principle of relativity. God is seen in the force required to bring about acceleration. God again hides from us his name, when uniform relative motion draws a veil over the face of God, and the waters appear still.
Gravity is a process of motion, not a mystical force. Gravity does not depend on the unobservable structure of abstract space-time. "Attraction" is explained by the intervention of a medium, the aether, and is the result of other motions, pressure differentials at the body, not the cause of them. If space is presumed to be a fluid, then the motions of bodies in that fluid jar the fluid and cause wave disturbances to propagate through the fluid of space, the aether. If space is a fluid, then bodies displace that fluid, and are therefore buoyant in that fluid. Under such conditions, and in an unlimited universe, the waves bodies create in space would then cause other bodies to be attracted to the source of the disturbance through the process of kinetic buoyancy,20 whereby the waves in space would displace heavy bodies towards the source of the wave, ceteris paribus. "Inertia" and "acceleration" are easily conceptualized through the kinetic buoyancy of bodies in space. They are wave forms, directions and pressure differentials in a medium.
If, in a low gravity environment, you fill a container with water and buckshot, the buckshot is denser than the water and displaces it. If you disturb the water, say by striking the side of the container with a hammer, the buckshot, which is denser than the water, will be attracted toward the hammer as though the hammer were a magnet and the buckshot were iron. This process can only occur if space is indeed an intervening medium.
Pulsations resulting from the dilatation of vortex atoms might also create forces of attraction, as may cavitating bubbles in space. George-Louis Le Sage demonstrated that if ultramundane, attenuated particles rush through space in random directions, gross bodies would shield each other from the bombardment, resulting in a net pressure of attraction between mutually shielding bodies. It is objected to this theory that intense heat would result, which would melt the planets, but the force has been demonstrated in gases, and exists, whether or not it is the cause of gravity.
Newton, seemingly, publicly claimed that space was not an intervening medium. The conclusion many came to was that Newton believed space was God, and that God's will, or Spirit, was the force behind gravity and magnetism, so-called "actions at a distance". Of course, this body of God must be presumed to be absolute and incapable of relative motion. Therefore, absolute motion was motion relative to the body of God, or absolute space.
Many had a sharp reaction to Newton's apparent sacrilegious mysticism, and relativists did not wait for Albert Einstein to be born to object to the idea of absolute space and time, most especially in the form of the Divine. There was an immediate repudiation against Newton and his beliefs, and the term relative continued to reign over absolute.
Kant and Carl Neumann reawoke an interest in the concept of absolute space, and Hobbes suggested that the aether far from major bodies is quiescent. Fresnel proposed that the aether only participates in the motion of bodies to a limited degree, and Michelson set out to find the relative motion of the Earth in the supposedly still sea of aether. However, relativity was the generally accepted belief throughout recorded human history, right up until the Twentieth Century, when absolutivity again raised its theological head, under the deceptive appellation, the "theory of relativity", which theory is indeed a wolf in sheep's clothing, in part responsible for the diminution of our living environment.
Albert did not take credit for the concept of relativity, per se, and does not deserve credit for it. Albert's taking credit for the concept of relativity would be like Bozo's taking credit for the concept of a clown, or Newton's taking credit for the awareness of gravity. Believe it or not, people were aware that things fell, before Sir Isaac was even born, and the ancients suspected that all things mutually attract.
Various relativity theories have evolved through time. Nothing is absolute, of that you can be relatively certain, but not absolutely certain. Relativity theories were and are theories of consciousness, theories of the relationships of mental images. However, to project the conceptualization of internal mental relations onto external Nature is anthropomorphic and wrong. Relational models are utilitarian tools of measurement, which measurement is a subjective process, not reflections of physical reality. The absolutivity of the special theory of relativity--so-called, is wrong and is destructive.
Albert seems never to have fully grasped that fact. He babbled in bits and pieces of what others (chiefly Hume, Mach and Poincaré) had written, but never made sense of it. He and Mileva initially adopted an absolute substratum to serve as the framework for inertial reference frames, the absolute substratum of the "resting system", and the Einsteins' theory requires one, but he continually denied any of the absolutes, which necessarily follow from absolute geometric form, as he was required to do in order to maintain any semblance of his priority, but which resulted in so-called "paradoxes" which are in fact irresolvable contradictions.
Max Planck stated,
"Einstein's recognition of the fact that our Newtonian-Kantian conception of space and time possesses in a certain sense only a relative value because of the arbitrary choice of the system of correlation and methods of measuring, affects the very root of our physical thought. But if space and time have been deprived of their absolute qualities, the absolute has not been disposed of finally, but has only been moved back a step to the measurement of four-dimensional multiplicity which results from the fact that space and time have been fused into one coherent continuum by means of the speed of light. This system of measurement represents something totally independent of any kind of arbitrariness and hence something absolute."21
Albert claimed priority over Lorentz by positivistically asserting that the aether was superfluous. People tend to forget that Poincaré held priority on this point, along with countless others, but, after the fact, Albert claimed priority on this point, then returned to the aether, then later asked that the word aether be banished from science. Lorentz acknowledged the need for a substratum, and Albert's supporters claimed priority over Lorentz by denying it, just as Newton's supporters claimed priority for Newton over the Continental scientists by denying the existence of the aether.
Relativity theory ca. 1900 traveled backwards in time to Tertullian's and Newton's mythologies of absolute space, and became, by definition, a largely supernatural, numerological explanation of reality put forward by FitzGerald, Larmor, Poincaré, Langevin and Lorentz, and changed but little from that time onward.
Though the theory in the hands of Poincaré claimed to discount "absolute space and time", it did not do so, but merely codified absolute space and time through the process of mathematical transformation (whatever that nebulous, purely mathematical term may be interpreted to mean, when applied to physical reality) into a system whereby the inertia of mass increased with the relative velocity of a body (whatever that purely conceptual term should mean, when applied to observed form) to become infinite at the speed of light, which velocity remains constant regardless of the speed of the source of radiation. Thus, the speed of light is constant, and serves as a universal speed limit to mass.
Which is to say, that if I am in my pool of space, and a boat moves through my space, though it shrinks, it grows heavier the faster it moves relative to me, until, at the regular speed of waves in my pool, it becomes infinitely resistant to acceleration and no force can cause it to move any faster. In a way, this makes sense, if you assume that the boat is itself composed of waves in the pool, which Lorentz did assume, for he believed matter to be electromagnetic in nature. But from the point of view of Poincaré, which Albert later repeated, it is an unjustified, positivistic view. Lorentz was almost stating that if you squeeze a balloon filled with air until the rubber sides touch front to back, the air inside the balloon will push the top and bottom of the balloon into an infinite length, which happens to all waves at Mach I, on paper.
Fancy gobble-dy-gook which signifies nothing but the fact that human beings have a tendency to seek out fancy words in lieu of understanding, and in time complicate that which is simple to the point of speculating as to how many angels may dance on the head of a pin, though no one alive and sane has seen an angel. . . . The truth is that the equations set the speed of light as Mach I for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, of which we are supposedly composed, and that at Mach I, two dimensions try to compress into one--mathematically, and when you try to squeeze an area, say a rectangle, into a barrier, say a line, the line grows to infinite proportions. Two dimensions cannot be compressed into one, and hence mathematically, a body cannot travel faster than light speed, according to the axiomatically derived equations. However, mathematics presumes an identity between and among units, which only exists definitionally as the Gestalt linkage promoted in the mind of the mathematician by the rules to which he or she pretends.
This speed limit, celeritas, would only be true if there were a substratum for electromagnetic mass operating in a quasi-static medium. Therefore, Albert's (Ludwig Lange's) system resolves all time, space and simultaneity back into absolutes in the mythology of an observer's rest world, or inertial system, which, in Albert's rendition, is truly the transformed frame of the hypothetical, quasi-static, rigid aether, or substratum, and in the Lange-Minkowski scheme, space-time as uniform translation.
Within the inertial reference frame, bodies can still move faster than wave speed with respect to each other, for two waves can approach one another, and their relative speed will be twice their wave speed. Since the system requires a substratum to give the transformation meaning, and further since "superluminal", faster than light relative motions do occur, all velocities being conceptual and not real, Mach I is exceeded, and the proclamation that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is meaningless, unless there is the presumption of Mach I and a medium. The true speed limit is then seen to be Mach II, or the head on collision of two rays of light, but the relativists would object that if you rode one of the waves ( you can't quite make it there, but nevertheless. . .), you would still measure the light approaching you to be traveling at Mach I.
The theory mathematically eliminates simultaneous events, and they can work out a mathematical scenario whereby you cannot observe anything to move faster than light, relative to you, even if a third party sees you headed for a Mach II collision (or close to one). They just claim that you weren't where you were when you were there, in another observer's inertial reference frame. I do not exaggerate here, and I am not using hyperbole. That is exactly what the special theory of relativity claims.
So, we have Lorentz claiming that there is one true inertial reference frame, the aether, which transforms magically and mathematically for each person who moves through the aether in uniform motion of translation (unaccelerated motion in a "straight" line), with measuring rods contracting and clocks slowing, and Poincaré claiming that the aether is superfluous, that no two events can be said to be simultaneous (for information cannot move instantaneously, and one can never truly determine the privileged frame of light, and thereby determine the true addition of velocities for the conveyance of information, and one must supposedly operate under the assumption that celeritas, as a definition, equates to distance and time, even though we never measure distance or time with light, but only conceptualize them from light in abstract models), and that space and time exist for each person independently and transform magically and mathematically into every other person's space, time, and simultaneity, with measuring rods representing space, and clocks, time. Albert repeated what Poincaré had earlier published, but accepted the privileged frame notion of Lorentz as the true geometric shape of a body at rest, with moving bodies attaining a kinematic shape, but preserving their true geometric shape in the frame of reference in which they are in relative rest, thereby, supposedly, precluding the possibility of detecting which frame is the privileged frame in which light has its true velocity, and in which absolute simultaneity could, therefore, be measured and recorded, for the true, relative velocities of bodies to light would then be known, which possibility Poincaré religiously excludes, in principle. The three systems of thought differ only theologically and metaphysically, with Lorentz' being the most sensible, Poincaré's the most synthetic, and Mileva and Albert's walking the razor's edge between fancy and fiction, bleeding profusely into both buckets with their pseudo-scientific, numerological slop.
All this nonsense came about, just so that we can accept the notion that light waves travel at a constant rate independent of the speed of the source of the light, which is more easily and sensibly understood by the fact that all waves travel at the same rate in the same medium. It doesn't matter how fast you throw a rock into the pond, the ripples still move at about the same speed. In the case of light, we discount the possibility of dispersion.
To repeat, Lorentz advocated absolute space and time, transformed for each moving observer, and Poincaré claimed that only transformed space and time exist in Lange's inertial systems, but never told us from what they are transformed, and all the while admitted that space and time are fictions of the mind which are adopted in science for the sake of convenience. Albert simply repeated what Lorentz and Poincaré had published earlier. Poincaré called his dancing space and time, "relative space and time". Albert repeated the refrain, without comprehending it, and then claimed priority for it.
As numerous authors have pointed out (Max Planck among them), there is an insurmountable problem faced when trying to substitute "relative" space and time for "absolute" space and time. The special theory of relativity, Poincaré's theory, proposes an absolute time and space transformed mathematically for each observer, and gives this network of absolute time and space the false and deceptive appellation of relative time and space.
Though Poincaré, and later Albert, insisted upon the use of material apparatus (rigid rods and unmoving clocks) to define the dimensions of an inertial reference frame, he also insisted, that in so doing, he was defining time and space, which was a non sequitur and a fallacy, and Poincaré knew it, but Albert seemingly lacked the depth of understanding to realize it. The dimensions of material, rigid rods and the ticktock of a clock, as represented and understood in consciousness as physical reality, do not equate to space and time, which are understood by consciousness to be methods of establishing order, conceptions of the extension of physical bodies, reinterpreted through abstraction into continuous extensions called "space" and "time", a separate class of perception from material. Space and time are conceptualizations, and not something real. Material is limited in extension and is known to consciousness to be real. Space and time are unlimited in extension, cannot be subdivided, and are known to consciousness to be purely abstract.
Relational perception is built upon the presumption of substratums. The substratums are the fabric of the human mind, which frames the image, and the assumption that the organization of images in the framework of the mind equates to an objective substratum, the form of objective reality. This is a critical part of relativity theory, which is masked by the jargon and abstract examples presented. Just as we separate memories from sense perceptions, we separate the relational views we image, from what we believe to exist physically, objectively.
Physical laws are objective and presume that there is substance which inspires consciousness and the relations of consciousness. Physical laws presume that there are soldiers marching past Plato's cave, casting their shadows on the walls of the cave. Poincare's approach, which in effect denies objective reality, is spiritual and not physical. Poincare's approach is J. B. Stallo's early spiritual approach to Physics.
Physical law is the codification of our beliefs regarding what we assume is a material reality, which is separate from our consciousness, and which reveals itself to us in consciousness as the relations which our consciousness is.
Therefore, the effort of the theory of relativity to state that a given observer's space and time are absolute to the observer, though relative to another observer's space and time, which are absolute to that particular observer alone, but not to the first observer, can only be resolved with an absolute substratum, objective reality interpreted through a human perspective, which fact Albert denied, admitted, denied again, flip-flopped over and never resolved.
It is far better to give up on the mental abstractions of continuous time and space in the pursuit of understanding Nature, as did Des Cartes and Leibniz, or at least they made an enormous effort to do away with them.
If you take a picture of one side of a tree, and I take a picture of the other side of the same tree, the two photos will look different. Should we then conclude, that because the pictures look different, there was no tree? Should we then conclude that the tree only existed as relations in each observer's mind and has no reality of its own? Relativity theory would ask us to accept both intolerable assumptions, based on the discrepancies of appearance between our photographs. Relativity theory would assert that the tree does not exist, only our conscious images of it, even though there supposedly is no it, exist, and relativity theorists would then set out axiomatically to find a set of equations which would convert my observations into yours, and then assert that the equations are reality and not the tree. They would fail to appreciate that they were proving that the tree was absolute, for, if it were otherwise, and the tree was not absolute, their equations would have no basis in fact, as there would be no tree to transform into the comparison of two perspectives. A sensible person realizes that the very existence of the objective tree and the objective observers compels that the two photographs be different in appearance.
There is no means to measure either space or time, other than as relations within consciousness. There are no rigid rods of space we can lay on the plane, which will measure "immaterial space". Space is abstract and space is continuous, it can't be made into packages. As Stallo pointed out, continuous space is conceptualized and is neither intuitively nor objectively real. Many confuse the psychological sense of permanence conceptualized space tends to inspire, with an absolute reality, but they are unable to offer a marker in the universe which would stipulate its coordinates. Neumann's "Body Alpha" has yet to be found, and until it is, absolute space remains a divine mystery. However, conceptualized space can serve as a substratum for framing images, but to call this space of assumption, absolute or relative, is to deprive words of their meaning.
Though bodies have extension, their extension is limited. Though the mind intuitively creates images of limited extension in the form of objective bodies, which the mind either senses or imagines, the mind does not intuitively create continuous space. Continuous space is conceptualized from the observed limited extension of bodies, which is both intuitively and objectively understood. The mind conceives of the extension of body, and abstracts that conception into limitless extension. We call this abstraction through the conceptualization of limitless extension, "continuous space", but the concept exists more as a wish, than as an actual image. One cannot imagine continuous space, but one can pretend that the command to imagine the finite into the "infinite" holds some meaning for the purposes of communication. Here, as with the concept of inertia, the human being pretends that the wish to know, which wish promptly reduces to the absurdity of a want of a sufficient reason for it to be otherwise, though it is never defined, can be styled as "knowledge".
Real rods, material measuring rods, are made up of moving, material particles, which are never at rest relative to each other, let alone relative to any observer. Said parts of the material rod are in perpetual motion relative to everything, including each other. Material rods measure material rods, and do not measure immaterial continuous space. Two material rods which agree with each other in length, may appear to expand and contract in sync relative to other material rods. Which rods are to be adjudged to measure immaterial "space"?
The limited extension of bodies defeats the conceptualized continuous extension of abstract space, and vice versa.
How can limited material (rods) be used to qualify and quantify that which is adjudged to be immaterial and continuous (space)? How can mass measure space? What equivalence does length or form, which are discontinuous, have to space, which is continuous and without form or length?
No two material rods may occupy the same space at the same time, and therefore their equivalence in occupying immaterial space can never be ascertained. No two rods can ever be said to be equivalent measures of "space". A solid rod is only an abstraction arbitrarily made by consciousness of unrelated parts, in constant relative motion to each other. A "rigid rod" is an illusion of words and nothing more. And yet, the special theory of relativity is founded upon the assertion that rigid rods equate to measurements of "space", which is presumed real and not abstract. It is a surreal theory.
For a measuring rod to be in relative motion, it must pass through time, and therefore must completely change, as nothing survives a passage through time. What we conceive of as the unchanging, rigid rod will be different in every sense from what it was the moment before, the very next moment, and so will we as observers of it. Hence, a measuring rod cannot move, it can only change into something entirely different. In moving, it ceases to be, as does the observer.
It is the psychological illusion that a body can move and remain the same, among other misbegotten precepts, which allows the mythology of the theory of relativity to survive. While many argue over priorities and absolute versus relative, few today realize that the reasoning of the theory, in whatever form it has taken, that of Zeno, Lorentz, or that of Poincaré, is fundamentally flawed in its assumptions.
A clock which ticks off time is no longer the same thing from one time to another, though we may delude ourselves into believing that the abstract body we fictively follow through imagined time is the same body and is at rest. The "sub-atomic particles" (motions) which compose the "clock" are constantly changing form and position with respect to each other. The clock itself is but a human abstraction consciously associated with permanence, where in reality there is no permanence. A rotting banana is a clock, and yet no part of what was survives the journey to what is.
Nothing exhibits duration. Change precludes duration. A clock cannot remain at rest, nor can it move, and it certainly cannot exhibit duration. If a clock cannot exhibit duration, how can it measure time? How could a measuring rod of zero length measure meters? How can a clock of zero duration measure minutes? We must, of course, realize that, in the theory of relativity, which compels us to believe in resting, rigid rods and synchronized clocks, we are dealing with pure fantasy, and not physical theory.
If, on the other hand, we presume an aethereal substratum, as it is commonly understood, one must wonder in what sense it endures. Is substance merely forms in the fluid of space? If so, in what sense does such fluid space endure, or even exist? The only resolution to this dilemma is to reexamine the concepts of time and substance. In questioning the nature of substance, we must ask ourselves, what sense has the arbitrary distinction between homogeneity and heterogeneity?
Ernst Mach wrote,
"Volkmann advocates an absolute orientation by means of the ether. I have already spoken on this point, but I am extremely curious to know how one ether particle is to be distinguished from another. Until some means of distinguishing these particles is found, it will be preferable to abide by the fixed stars, and where these forsake us to confess that the true means of orientation is still to be found. [Citations Deleted]"22
Mach's comment is equally valid to "space" and aether. The "fixed stars" offer no way out. As Mach indicated, points cannot be established in a quiescent aether. Nor can points be established in an intangible space, as no points can be distinguished in the continuous pond. Here, the four-dimensional manifold of space-time deludes us. The axes only exist on paper, and without paper and pen, they become entirely meaningless. In order to establish coordinates, one must perceive or conceptualize body, which is limited in extension. Though the axes of "space-time" appear as limited in extension in that they are drawn as lines, they are a group which represents continuous extension in every sense, for if we "blow up" any line in the map, it fills the space. The division into axes, or lines, of what is in reality a conceptualized continuous space deceives the mind into believing it can distinguish locations in continuous space, when it cannot, and it is wrong to call it "multi-dimensional space-time" for it is without dimension or scale. The mind can only distinguish crossed lines as points, and then only abstractly, again wishing that there be something, where nothing can be actively imagined. Lines are bodies limited in extension. Planes are bodies limited in extension. Space is not composed of limited extension in any sense, and cannot be created from limited extension. The phrases, "point in space", or "point in quiescent aether", are without any meaning. They cannot be distinguished.
What is aether? Is it substance, or merely the continuation of existence, per se? All indications are, and all well-known explanations state, that the aether is only known to us as waves in itself, and, abstractly, as extension in imagination. Thus, the aether is merely the forms it assumes, which forms are in constant flux. As such, substance, per se, loses its meaning. Substance is form and form does not endure. So, what meaning has homogeneity? If substance is a change of form in a fluid, and forms are distinguishable, is the fluid of space, which contains infinitely various forms, homogeneous, or heterogenous? If flows are made up of waves, or waves are made up flows, what real distinction can be made between flows and waves? If no distinction exists between waves and flows, then in what sense does the aether exist? It is known to us only through its effects. The effects are distinguishable. The physical exists as change. The aether is ill-defined as the seat of that change, and the appellation "space-time" is entirely meaningless as representing a static lack of change and a deceptive image of a manifold which is a continuous whole. We use bodies to distinguish bodies, and not "space-time".
One means to unite the artificial distinctions and eliminate endless identities is to adopt the Greek notion of Logos. Force is change, substance is change. This mass-energy equivalence was well-known to the Greeks and appears expressly in Heraclitus and Aristotle. Albert's myths obstruct our understanding and set us in quicksand.
We must realize that time is a conscious symbol for change, and not a quantity which can be measured. How can any quantity of duration be equated to any other quantity of duration? What has ever been observed to endure, and what conscious state has ever endured to witness it? "Where does time go when time passes?" is an oft asked question. Where does new time come from when we pass through time? If I die today, will I be dead longer than if I die tomorrow? What unaltered meter stick will mark the increments? What clock lasts forever? What measuring stick stretches across the universe? In what sense does non-existence embrace existence? If non-existence does not embrace existence, then my being dead has no existence, and there is no duration to my being dead--there is no duration to any form of position, regardless of the number of dimensions, and no thing can last any longer than any other thing. Since all thing perish in their ephemeral being, there are no clocks to measure "time". The Gestalt linkage of comparing a conceptualized map of "now" to a conceptualized map of "was" should not be confused with a group of enduring physical dimensions, as no such markers have been found outside of the imagination.
A clock, if it is a physical body, is a completely different jumble of moving particles from moment to moment, which we, through abstraction, qualify as being the same instrument of measure. In reality, a clock, therefore, measures nothing other than complete change, with no interval of duration measured or implied.
In consciousness, a door is different from a pendulum clock. Does the complete difference between a door and a pendulum clock represent a measure of duration? If not, then why does a body, a clock at time A, measure time when some completely different body, which we mistakenly identify as being the same clock, is different in appearance at time B? A supposedly constant clock cannot pass from moment to moment without suffering a complete change. We merely, abstractly, view it as being the same, because we give it the same name, while acknowledging that it has completely changed.
How could one ever hope to synchronize time, other than to search out two bodies which look the same and which we expect to look the same again, even after both have changed? How, against what standard, is the "interval of duration" to be calculated?
It is important to realize that the appearance of a clock (for example, the hands or numbers on the face of a watch) is not a divinely given marker of time. It is a visual image we school ourselves to obey mentally as somehow equivalent to our sense of order.
Appearance, too, is relative. Every object has a different appearance from every other object, and every observer views the same object differently and receives different sense information, as a matter of necessity, whether or not the second observer is presumed to be at rest in the imagined rest inertial reference frame of another observer. Were it not true, there would be no two or more observers, but one observer with two or more names.
The similarity of appearance of two clocks cannot be construed to be a position in the fantasy world of time, for, if it were so, no such position could ever be observed, as no two clocks are one clock, identical in appearance forever. Therefore, we don't synchronize time, but generalized and abstracted appearances, false expectations, and titles, when we "synchronize clocks".
Every object which we abstractly imagine to move through time, cannot move through time. Change is complete from one moment to the next. Duration has never been observed, only change has been observed.
We believe in time because we apply the same image and name to something which is no longer the same, a clock. In our consciousness, time exists as the relation of before and after, and in our consciousness, a clock is that which exhibits changes which symbolize before and after through the fictional duration of the changing clock. If the known universe undergoes constant change, how can there be any rate to the passage of time other than CONSTANT? How can one declare that one clock appears to run slower than another? How can there be any quantity of duration other than NONE?
Time is an illusion of consciousness, which separates "memories" from sense perceptions, both of which co-exist. The universe appears completely different from moment to moment.
Since both time and space are taken to exist, and further since their existence manifests itself in the mathematical transformation of units, the Einsteins' relativity theory is merely a restatement of the mythology of absolute time and space and is not truly a relativity theory at all. It denies the relations upon which the mind relies and substitutes mythological absolutes, which supposedly then regulate the mind. It transforms these fictitious absolutes through mathematical ratios from one observer to the next with perfect consistency. Relativity theory paints a cathedral, which we all can see from various perspectives, and though relativity theory denies that the cathedral is really there, we all can see it, and if it weren't there, it would not be there to view from different perspectives.
The Einsteins' relativity theory compels us to pretend: pretend the definitions represent reality, when they do not; pretend there is a logical procession from premise to conclusion in the theory, when there is not; pretend the theory is supported by experiment, when it is not; pretend that absolute time measured relatively is relative time and not absolute time, though it is absolute, as defined; pretend mathematical transformation is physical transformation, when it is not; etc. . . . Relativity theory is a game of pretense. Pretend Albert Einstein holds priority on the theory, when he clearly does not. Pretend it is logical and physical, when it is illogical and delusional.
The same relations of conception, which are proposed in the special theory of relativity, are apparently caused physiologically by hashish (see the section herein from Carpenter) and schizophrenia. It is perhaps a drug and madness induced theory. There are more reasons which would indicate a strong influence from madness and drug use on the theory, which will be explored in future volumes. This is not meant to imply that the Einsteins derived relativity theory from Albert's suspected schizophrenia, or that they used drugs, but that others, who were mad, and/or drugged, penned the words the Einsteins later repeated.
Let's examine the non sequitur of the pretend "inertial reference frame", an ancient misconception dating back at least to Leucippus and Democritus, reconstituted into a sensible structure of the extension of bodies and not continuous space by Des Cartes, only to be destroyed again by Newton, Poincaré, who knew better, and the Einsteins, who may not have known better.
The concept of an inertial reference frame is a fallacy in any system, the Greek's or modern relativistic. Herbart assumed, long ago and without proof, that a point, which "point" is itself an assumption, can exist and must of necessity rest in a motionless space of its own. Why this should be so, I don't know. Perhaps he believed in complete, universal equilibrium. The fact that the universe is in perpetual change would tend to imply that points, if they do exist, exist in a space in which they are in perpetual motion, and are subject to a pressure differential on all sides, if a point can even be conceived of as having a "side". Again, we must pretend that the wish for there to be a "point" equates to the actual image of a "point", which image cannot be formed in consciousness, but is understood by nodding one's head and agreeing to the "point".
The pretend inertial reference frame is based on the mythology of "uniform motion" found in Aristotle, Galileo and most since, including Albert. Uniform motion has never been observed, and can never be proven. In the special theory of relativity, the uniform motion of a body, relative to an observer, who is assumed to be at rest relative to his or her coordinate system, is, circularly defined, theoretical, unaccelerated, relative motion in a straight line. The laws of mechanics must hold good in the "reference frame", which is never the case in reality.
A theoretical example of this impossible requisite to the theory would be a train running perfectly straight down the x-axis of your pretend inertial reference frame at a perfectly constant speed, in which train the laws of mechanics hold good, and of which each object "at rest" must be composed of unmoving parts at all levels. Since a clock is a uniform motion, it cannot "rest" in any inertial frame and yet be a "clock". No such "inertial system" has ever been observed. That the entire special theory of relativity is built upon this hypothetical delusion of an "inertial system", which directly contradicts experience, must indicate to all reasonable people that the theory is really not valid science, but rather, is childish fantasy and numerology. It is a pretend theory, spoken of with reverence, and, therefore, awe inspiring to those who pretend it is rational.
We are asked to assume an "observer" at "rest", from his point of view, "observing" bodies in "uniform motion" relative to him, which scenario never occurs in reality. Of course, we are not allowed to ask, "Just what is an observer?"
If I am an observer, every observable part of me is in motion relative to every other part of me. How can I be at rest, while I am in perpetual motion with relation to myself? What one point of me am I to designate arbitrarily as I? Why should a make-believe point arbitrarily affect my perceived dimensions of space and time and the simultaneity of events in my world? Why should my world be different from every other universe? How can other universes exist in the same space and time as mine? Why should a pretend inertial reference frame extend through that which does not exist (space and time) and displace that which is perceived (matter and motion)?
What relation has my conscious construct of relations to do with pretend physical space, which is presumed to be mutable depending on the relative motion of my consciousness? It is as ridiculous as it would be if relativity theory asked us to assume that the size of a mountain in a picture a camera pressed against my eye, when I am one mile from the mountain, takes of the mountain, depends upon the Dow Jones Industrial Average for last May. And if that average is up, the mountain will be twice as large in reality as it would have been if the Dow were down, but in any event the size of the mountain in the picture will remain the same. And no matter that no verifiable prediction has been made, the relativity theorist would claim victory and state, "You see, the mountain is exactly the size I predicted based on the Dow! Furthermore, due to the contortions of space-time, the picture will look the same no matter what the Dow was, but the mountain will have changed, and its changes will be imperceptible due to the 'principle of relativity'. Try to disprove what I say!"
Time is defined through the synchronization of clocks. Therefore, to define time in an inertial system requires that every point of the frame be occupied by a relatively resting clock, thereby rendering two systems in uniform motion an impossibility, for one system would displace the other. In this universal world of material clocks, we would still have to transmit light through the material clocks in vacuo, a mutually exclusive proposition. The clutter of clocks would obstruct the very light synchronizations, which they are meant to provide.
How a clock can be resting, or a point, let alone be a resting point, is never explained. One need not allude to the extreme of a universe of resting clocks to dispel the myth, for a single resting clock, a single unmoving point cannot occupy the same location as a moving point. Therefore, no comparable measurements can be made between frames in relative motion--no light experiments between frames can be performed, other than in self-contradicting abstraction. The mathematical Gestalt linkages required in the pretend world the special theory of relativity compels, the extension of dimension from variables, have no valid place in physical theory.
A resting point cannot be a clock, for a clock must be a uniform motion--there can be no "resting clock", such is a contradiction in terms.
Suppose we fantasize, as relativity theory requires us to do, arbitrarily, about an abstract point, say the abstract center of mass of my body, to serve as the reference point, or origin, from which we map out an "inertial reference frame" of observation, the familiar xyz and t axes of geometry--Cartesian coordinates, in non-Cartesian pseudo-space and pseudo-time. Now we have the planes and extended space with which to construct the fantasy of a three-dimensional model of an observer's varying world. I can now supposedly draw a picture of the world based on points in xyzt.
If, however, I spin around on my heel while looking up at the stars, am I really to believe that I have caused the heavens to turn through my space? How can it be that the stars on the periphery of my vision accelerate to superluminal velocities, merely because I choose to spin on my heel? What physical connection is there between the stars and me? What fan blades are churning through the universe, simply because I spin on my heel? Why is it that if I spin on my heel, it doesn't take much energy to stop me, but would take an unimaginable amount of energy to stop a spinning universe?
At this point, the pseudo-relativist will cry foul, and state that, while my spinning on my heel may represent my rest frame of reference, it does not represent an inertial frame of reference. It is here that the pseudo-relativist reveals his or her belief in absolute space.
That the special theory of relativity distinguishes "rotations" and other "accelerations" from "inertial reference frames" is proof that said theory incorporates a belief in absolute space. The pseudo-relativist must justify this assertion of rest beyond the perceived rest of the consciousness, which is observing its world. The pseudo-relativist must persuade the observer to ignore his or her sense of rest, and interpolate "real rest" from the many motions the observer witnesses, and based on arbitrary interpretations of what those observations should mean. The consciousness must convince itself of some interpolated rest into universal motion. This theological and/or metaphysical rest, interpolated from motion, is absolute rest. Furthermore, the observer is not only required to interpolate "rest" into motion in the case of "rotation", but in every real instance, for no two observed points are ever at rest relative to each other in the observed universe, and sans Neumann's "Body Alpha" no such assertion of mutual rest can be argued, other than Petitio Principii, arguing for a given case of mutual rest, by artificially defining that given example as mutual rest.
The special requirement for "rotation" is an entirely artificial ad hoc requirement made arbitrarily to account for the obvious failure of the theory to express pure relativity. Based on the premises of the theory, the "rotating" observer must, with equal validity to any other real situation, observe that the stars are spinning through empty space at superluminal velocities. If the theory is to be consistent, then there can be no observations of rotation, other than objects rotating in the observer's space. The observer is always at rest and must conclude that everything he or she observes is in relative motion to him or her. The ad hoc requirement that the observer interpolate rest into the observed motions within the universe is a requirement that he or she abandon the restrictions of the theory, and assume an absolute space. It is a statement that the inertial reference frame only exists in the form of absolute space and its inertial transformations, and, therefore, the special theory of relativity is a fallacy.
Any mythical model of space-time is in no way a reflection of what we observe in reality, nor does cause and effect in the fantasy model of a pretend "inertial reference frame" agree with the real world.
There are some severe problems which occur if we try to define motion as merely relative to observers and not as relative to the universe taken as an integrated whole. Albert claimed that superluminal velocities are an impossibility, and yet, a star can be on one side of my observed universe one moment, then on the other the next, the same star which was to my left is now to my right--a inconceivably fast motion, and by Albert's accounts, an impossibility!
How is it that the light which was approaching me from positive x is now approaching me from negative x? If we remove the artificial, ad hoc restrictions, and follow the prescriptions of the theory, the theory falls apart.
Beyond the special theory of relativity, with its inconsistent, ad hoc restrictions, the concept of purely relative motion is a fallacy. How did the star move so far in my space, so fast, and why does it seem to be in the same relation to everything but me? Why do things further away from me accelerate faster and travel farther than things closer to me, when I spin on my heel? Why do I appear to spin on the axis of my heel at the same rate relative to each of them? Why don't the stars travel backwards in time when I spin on my heel? After all, they are traveling faster than the speed of light! Why do the stars appear to move such vast distances relative to me, the more distant the star, the greater the distance traversed, but I don't move relative to them, and I do not rotate faster relative to any given star, be the star nearer or further from me?
Relative motion assumes a reciprocity which is demonstrably a fallacy. The laws of mechanics never hold good beyond kinematic abstractions. Relativity theory compels an absolute space to serve as the basis for the pretend inertial reference frame in uniform translation of rectilinear motion, so that it can arbitrarily exclude "rotations" from "inertial reference frames", while including interpolated systems of "rest", all of which compels an absolute space, and it is, therefore, not a relativity theory, but a relational theory with an absolute substratum, which substratum is revealed through empirical experimentation for suspected inertia--the special theory of relativity is a circular argument for absolute space. The simple world of the humble observer laying fictitious rigid rods end to end, ends up in the ad hoc madness of chasing after a vain interpolation of absolute space, just as it did in Lorentz.
Light which propagates in empty space at a universally constant speed, which speed is independent of the motion of the source, can only axiomatically do so in absolute, resting space. Consider Albert's 1907 paper,
"That the supposition made here, which we want to call the "principle of the constancy of the velocity of light", is actually met in Nature, is by no means self-evident, nevertheless, it is--at least for a system of coordinates in a definite state of motion--rendered probable through its verification, which Lorentz' theory based upon an absolutely resting aether has ascertained through experiment."
"Daß die hier gemachte Annahme, welche wir ,,Prinzip von der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit" nennen wollen, in der Natur wirklich erfüllt sei, ist keineswegs selbstverständlich, doch wird dies -- wenigstens für ein Koordinatensystem von bestimmtem Bewegungszustande -- wahrscheinlich gemacht durch die Bestätigungen, welche die, auf die Voraussetzung eines absolut ruhenden Äthers gegründete Lorentzsche Theorie durch das Experiment erfahren hat."23
Only after Lorentzian geometry is hypothesized can one assume that celeritas is an invariant in all systems in (rectilinear) uniform motion, and this assumption must of necessity proceed from a hypothesized absolute space, for uniform motion is uniform relative to absolute space, and must pass the standard tests for inertial motion, as in Newton's Fifth Corollary. Lorentzian geometry is by no means axiomatic, but only rendered probable if confirmed by experiment.
Only when the addition of velocities is not of consequence, can the assumption that light speed in all directions equates to distance and time axiomatically follow from the premises of mechanics. Such is only the case in theoretical absolute space, in which space the velocity of light is defined to be a universal constant, which velocity is independent of the motion of the source, unless Lorentzian geometry and the validity of Maxwell's equations for absolute space are first hypothesized, and then celeritas is only assumed invariant in those rigid systems which move uniformly to absolute space and in absolute space itself. Two systems in uniform motion with respect to each other, do not necessarily move uniformly relative to absolute space and non-rigid systems which are accelerated disintegrate, as perceived by co-moving observers, while maintaining Euclidean geometry in the inertial system through which they accelerate.
Gradually, relativists (who are in fact "absolutists") dropped Albert's belief in absolute space and adopted Everett's, Lange's, Poincaré's and Minkowski's beliefs in uniform translation of motion between inertial reference frames. The modern requirement that one must empirically test for inertial motion completely obviates any purely relational basis the theory might otherwise have had. Space again artificially enters into the special theory of relativity as the artificial arbiter of inertia, just as it did in Newton's myths, which myths regarding the contradiction in terms, "force" of "inertia", Boscovich, Pasley and Mach have long since discredited.
The Einsteins' 1905 paper begins with the assumption of light propagating in absolutely resting space, the "resting system" at an invariant speed, celeritas, which is to say, it accepts the validity of Maxwell's equations for absolute space. The paper then proceeds to "moving systems", which are in uniform motion with respect to the "resting system", at rest in empty space, just as in Newton's Fifth Corollary. Such "uniform" motion only has synthetic, a posteriori meaning in a kinematic theory, when it proceeds conceptually from the assumption of absolute space. Two bodies may have uniform motion with respect to each other (though without the Gestalt linkage of a tacit substratum, the concept is still meaningless, for uniform motion establishes absolute standards of direction, distance and time), but in no wise be in inertial motion. Uniform, inertial motion is only axiomatically and kinematically definable when it proceeds from the concept of absolute space, most especially since "inertia" is foolishly taken to be an attribute of non-physical, empty space. How this non-physical, Godly space should produce inertial effects is never explained, but is seemingly Aristotle's a priori argument that there just isn't any good reason why it shouldn't be so--other than the fact that inertial motion has never been observed.
Even in the modern, post-Poincaré-Minkowski mythology, the world is absolute in four dimensions, with space being the potentiality and actuality of a tri-dimensional sub-manifold and time being a non-defined something, a false belief in "uniform motions"--"relatively resting clocks", seemingly "periods" or "instants" of conceptualizing space, which isn't quite space in its qualities, but "equal spaces traversed in equal times"--circularly defined. Nothing moves in this four dimensional manifold of "Space-Time", which is more aptly dubbed "Nothing-Moving". It is absolute from the beginning of time through to the end. Observers are sentient in 3 dimensions of space and in time, but inexplicably are not sentient in 4 dimensions, seemingly because we "remember"--pretend that positions are divisible from their four-dimensions, and, further, because we "measure" to know, instead of knowing. However, the universe is without humanized dimensions, such that the absolutist mysticism of the special theory of relativity is vacuous--literally and figuratively. These myths of the special theory of relativity compel us to accept that which they compel us to deny. Quadri-dimensional "Space-Time" does not exist without that which it obviates, 3 dimensional space and time. The rules in the rule book exist only in abstraction. Telling someone how a television set works creates images in the mind of the listener, which have no physical reality. Telling an observer how his or her observations compare to another observer's observations does not create a physical, absolute world, nor is it science to pretend that the rules in the rule book mirror an absolute world, which cannot, by the rules, be observed. Pretending that an absolute world, "Space-Time", exists, but cannot be observed, but only understood through obedience to absolute, abstract and irrational laws, is religion, not science, and in the case of the special theory of relativity, the religion is "numerology". The pseudo-relativists worship the sun god, "Celeritas", Minkowski's "mystic formula" for time, Mileva and Albert's "universal constant". No true scientist speaks of universal constants, for no such knowledge can ever be attained. How can we measure the one-way speed of light at all points and times of the universe? We cannot, currently, measure the one-way speed of light, at all.
Ebenezer Cunningham wrote,
"With Minkowski space and time become particular aspects of a single four-dimensional concept; the distinction between them as separate modes of correlating and ordering phenomena is lost, and the motion of a point in time is represented as a stationary curve in four-dimensional space. The whole history of a physical system is laid out as a changeless whole."24
It is perhaps wrong to discuss mathematical models as though they signify physical forms and mental processes, but one must plunge into the numerology and metaphysics of relativity mythology, if one is to understand where it errs.
In reality, motion is not relative to observers, but involves a pressure differential, which involves preferred classes of reference frames, and hints ever so strongly that space is a medium which conducts "waves" and which exhibits the properties of buoyancy, as Budde averred. Des Cartes provides us with arguably the best definition of motion, not as Galileo's artificial change in location through time, which "locations" and "times" do not exist outside of the human mind, but Des Cartes' motion as the relation of a body to its immediately surrounding medium, the pressure differential of which it is, which interaction is change--existence.
That there may exist a principle of equal and opposite action-reaction between interacting bodies, does not justify the fallacy that motion is the relation of events tracked through time in a reference frame. For bodies to act and react with each other, they must impinge on each other with some "force". Bodies which are separated by some distance, and which do not impinge on each other directly, do not "move" relatively to each other in the sense of action-reaction, even if we see that the relationships in our visual image of them changes.
Motion is not a change in location, there are no locations, through time, there is no time, but is a pressure differential in the medium of space. The special theory of relativity renders absurd both the concept of relative motion in 3 dimensions and time, and the concept of immobility in 4 dimensions, if these models are supposed to correlate to observation, for it is the fallacy of non sequitur to assume that simply because intervals are invariant in "Space-Time", Space-Time is the absolute world. We have to pretend to the changeless One of "Space-Time", and find it only in rules. It is natural to us to make this pretense, for we believe that the Self is the One of a lifetime, though changing, but it is in no observable sense one, but is always many, and we do not equate the experiences of a lifetime to one experience. We simply, tacitly, pretend that one Self experiences them. Newton's space and time are the pretense that one God experiences the motions of all bodies, causing them through His will. Minkowski's Space -Time is the pretense that all experience is one experience, but the universe is then defined as experiences, and the set of One is artificial and represents a group of many given a categorical name, One. The word "elephant" is a human symbol. Taking all elephants as the category "elephant" does not reduce the many to one. The word, the symbol, is simply an arbitrary rule for the sake of communication. The category has no physical reality.
My spinning on my heel and thus creating the illusion of rotating the universe around me, does not build up energy throughout the universe in the absurd sense of action-reaction, such that should the universe hit an outside object, it would strike it with infinitely greater force if I were spinning on my heel, than if I were not. Categorizing my sensibilities, while I turn, as a "reference frame" does not cause the universe to move.
One (such as Mach) might argue that it would take just as much energy to stop the spinning universe relative to me in the above stated scenario, as it would in any other conception of the same relative motion, and "stopping the universe from spinning" can also be conceived of as causing the universe to spin with me, which would again be mistakenly equating relative motion with action-reaction. For, so he claimed, the universe is given to us but once, and we should conceive it with an economy of thought.
Due to the law of the conservation of energy, the two cases are not the same. To stop the universe from spinning, to cause it to spin with me, would require the addition-creation of energy, which we, perhaps mistakenly, perhaps not, preclude. My spinning, or ceasing to spin, does not result in, or necessitate the creation or destruction of energy. There are no levers outside of the universe to lift it, nor brakes on its wings to slow it. Due to the conservation of energy, relative motion is a fallacy. There is no reciprocity to relative motion beyond that in our imaginations.
It requires less energy, and energy which can conceivably be supplied, to impart the relative motion by my spinning or ceasing to spin, than it would to cause the universe to spin about me while I remained unaccelerated, or to stop spinning, while I remained unaccelerated. Grabbing the sun in a sling and causing it to rotate about me is not the same as my spinning on my heel, and Nature knows this. Space holds the Sun more firmly in her grasp than space holds my body. The existence of couples in free space obviates purely relative motion. I can't, if coupled to the Sun, cause it to move, for the force I would apply to the couple would move me and not the Sun.
This is also made apparent through the effect of kinetic buoyancy. Fill three similar tubes with a comparatively homogenous fluid. Place in one tube a ball which has the same average density per volume as the fluid itself. Place in another tube a ball of greater density than the fluid, and in the third tube place a ball of lesser density. We now have two accelerometers and an anti-accelerometer! The tube with the lighter ball will react to positive accelerations as the tube with the heavier ball will react to negative accelerations. The tube with the neutral ball will largely not be affected by acceleration. The denser ball will be attracted toward the source of acceleration-disturbance. The rarer ball will be repelled from the source of acceleration-disturbance. The neutral ball will remain largely unaffected. What is acceleration, if not a state of buoyancy and/or the polarized motion of a wave group in its medium?
This is somewhat equivalent to Newton's argument for absolute space, though it does not compel or require universal absolute space, only "inertia", but inertia as a property of a medium, not as an artificial property of "empty space" or "dead matter". There is a distinction between the dislocation of bodies, the change in position of bodies amongst themselves, as imagined in the relations of human consciousness, and the physical transference of motion through impact--truly through continuity.
The argument that motion is purely relative, as it is in our imaginations, and the physical existence of inertia, cannot be reconciled given our present understanding of force. We ought not to confuse the principle of action-reaction with the principle of relative motion, which relative motion resides only in the abstraction of mathematical space. To do so is numerology, which the facts obviously prove false. If I walk past a rock submerged in a still lake, my walking causes the rock to move through my abstract mathematical space, but does not cause the rock to move through the still waters of the lake.
My taking a step towards a mountain requires less energy than a mountain's taking a step towards me, yet, to me as an observer the relative motion is the same in both cases in my abstract mathematical space. The mountain and I move towards each other. Some substratum, in the sense of an intervening medium, seemingly must be involved in the difference, and the hypothetical, static "Space-Time" of relativity theory must be a fallacy. The Nature of this medium is the subject of pure speculation. [The general theory of relativity requires a medium to keep bodies at bay, though its advocates dispute this. The general theory of relativity requires that gravity remain a force, though its advocates refutes this, for, mass acts on the nature of space, which is taken to be a medium, the medium which separates bodies and holds them in place, and which action to change that medium is the action of a force. This force is no less occult than the old Newtonian "action at a distance" theory of gravitation, and is actually equivalent to it, with a slight modification of the expected measurements for known motions, a modification made long before Albert's published work of 1916 by Hilbert, and yet earlier by Gerber.]
Remove any supposed obstacle, and still the mountain floating in "empty space" will require more force to accelerate toward me, than I will to accelerate toward it. How, if space is relative to an observer's frame of reference, can that occur? Why is it in one instance that the mountain is overcoming space, an act requiring energy, and in the other instance, is overcoming my space but not requiring energy to do so? In both circumstances, according to the theory of relativity, the mountain is overcoming my space, since I am the observer, or my center of mass is somehow an observer, in some inexplicable fashion (unless we admit of absolutes!). Why is any actual difference between the same relative motion ever observable, if it is space which is relative, and not simply conceptions which are relative? Why do I objectively feel accelerated should I move toward the mountain, but not when it moves towards me? Why do I subjectively see the same motion in my conceptualized mathematical space?
It is no wonder the pseudo-relativists must white wash over the Metaphysics of their theory, for their theory is not a relativity theory, but pure and unabashed absolutism! They hold up the shield of positivism to preclude any discussion of the Metaphysics of their theory, and again resort to pretending, for they pretend that there is no metaphysics in their theory, when in fact it is entirely composed of Metaphysics, and is a numerological theory and not science. Since relativity theory is purely metaphysical, and further since pseudo-relativists refuse to discuss Metaphysics, they preserve their theory as a dogmatic institution, which cannot be disturbed at its foundational level, for its basis in Metaphysics is expressly off-limits.
Metaphysically, modern theory mistakenly confuses the exchange of motion through impact, with the conception of relative motion based on observation. Where does the energy come from to move the universe ten feet through my space, when I walk ten feet across a room? How is it that some relative motions exhibit force, while others do not, if all motions are merely observer-based, relative motions? If the universe is limited, how can it be other than absolute?
Suppose we tie a rope around the mountain. The mountain and I are presumed to be hovering in free space. I grab the rope and pull the mountain towards me. Why will I observe that the rest of the universe seems to move relative to me, but does not seem to move relative to the mountain (to any appreciable degree)? Suppose the mountain pulls the rope (figuratively speaking, of course). I will again observe that there appears to be a preferred frame, that of the rest of the observed universe, which appears less affected relative to the mountain and more affected relative to me, when the mountain and I move towards each other.
Again, if instead of a mutual action, some outside force is applied, the relative motion between the mountain and me will differ in terms of the energy needed to bring it about, depending upon which body is forced toward the other body. The true frame of "inertia" is independent of observation and involves fluid space, which is revealed in acceleration, and which implies a dynamic substratum. Place the three tubes with fluid, and spheres, inside (the apparatus for detecting kinetic buoyancy), on the two distinct bodies, and the motion of the spheres with respect to the tubes will reveal which body "accelerates" in the "space" of its "medium". Even if forces proportional to the mass taken as particles are applied to each volume element of the mass, effects will arise which disclose the acceleration, in any non-ideal, real circumstance.
Any relative acceleration reveals a preferred frame of reference between two bodies. If two space ships drift through free space in relative rest with respect to each other, and passengers in both are able to float freely in their respective craft, with no apparent tendency toward the walls of their spaceship, then they begin to accelerate relative to each other, it is possible that in one of the craft, passengers will be thrust against a wall of their spaceship, while in the other, no such effect occurs. Why should that be so, if all motion is merely relative and no preferred reference frame exists? The uniform translation of space is no less an absolute concept than the absolute concept of a singular space at rest, most especially when celeritas is taken as an absolute and limiting velocity, which results in absolute "Space-Time", and the invariance of Gc.
If, however, the space ships are identical (an impossibility) and they push off from each other, there will be reciprocity, and each will experience the same acceleration, ceteris paribus. This reveals that relative motion is limited to the impossible, abstract "ideal" of two identical bodies engaged in an equal and opposite reaction. We should not be tempted to presume an ideal here, and suppose that the ideal is the universal law, but rather, reason would have it that the universal law is that an identity between distinct bodies never occurs, which is to say, A is never equal to B. The universe exists as a principle of inequality, and, therefore, mathematics is only successful as a measure of inequality against an artificial standard, the fantasy of the absolute. This should never be forgotten.
Physics does not address relative motions of observer-based displacements. Physics addresses the displacement of masses in the fluctuating, limitless whole (an odd phrase) of the universe, which is why forces are observably variable in the same relative motion, though they ought not be according to the precepts of relativity theory. The fact that the same relative motion, a mountain and a man moving toward each other, requires entirely different forces under different actual motions, indicates that purely relative motion is purely a fallacy.
Does the fact that purely relative motion is a fallacy imply an absolute space of rest or of uniform translation? No, it does not. It implies that motion is not a change in location through time, nor the changing relations of perceived bodies, per se, but that motion is a pressure differential independent of time, space or absolute position (what that pressure should be understood to constitute must include the basic premise of change). A body is moving, not because it is changing location or relation relative to an observer, but because it is subject to uneven pressure in its position among its surrounding medium, or is a wave form itself within the medium, the distinction being largely semantic and conceptual, not real.
Though relativity theory requires us to imagine purely relative motion, observation is not a cause of physical phenomena. The myth that observation is the cause of reality held back scientific progress throughout the Twentieth Century. My reader will find more on this explanation in a subsequent volume of mine to this work, where I will discuss how the general theory of relativity inhibited us from pursuing the mechanical cause of gravity with our full resources, and may well have closed our eyes to the destruction of the healthy field structure of the Earth--the potentially devastating phenomenon of aethereal pollution.
What would happen if the Earth suddenly stopped turning, relative to the vast majority of the observed universe? Would I, as a body on the Earth, be unaffected? If not, why not? If I am now at rest relative to the Earth, why wouldn't I remain so? Why would the Earth move relative to me, if it were to stop turning relative to the rest of the universe? What implications does Rowland's experiment hold, as analogy, if nothing else?
My eyes lie on certain points of xyzt and my hands on others. My center of mass is the origin of the axes. How do I measure distance on x? With rigid material rods, as the special theory of relativity suggests? The special theory of relativity would demand that the rods not only be rigid, an impossibility, but also that they be at rest relative to my center of mass (which point is only an abstraction, a mental fiction, and not a physical reality), a further impossibility. Furthermore, the special theory of relativity requires that the laws of mechanics hold good in the measured system of coordinates, a situation which can only exist in interpolated abstraction. The theory is a fantasy. Nothing is at rest.
No point of any known rod is ever at rest relative to my hypothetical center of mass. No point on any material rod is at rest relative to any other point on the same material rod, and the rod itself is but an image humans mentally generate arbitrarily of a number of unrelated bodies, motions and relations.
No two material rods are known to agree, or can ever be proven to agree, in length or stability through time. We have no way of knowing what stability through time should mean. We have no way of knowing if two rods, which are separated, would agree if placed in the same space. We have, therefore, no means of determining what same space is. We have no means to judge if any rod measures space, or what the measurement of space should mean. Space itself is merely a hypothetical group of dimensions, which cannot be imagined in the absence of physical bodies. Space is presumed continuous, and, therefore, to subdivide it is to deny its presumed nature.
Rest can only be conceived of as an abstract and infinitesimally minute point, and it is irrational to extend this rest point, which itself cannot be conceived, into the pseudo-dimensions of an interpolated pretend inertial reference frame, when it is observed that every point of the so-called "rest" inertial reference frame, other than the pretend origin, is in motion relative to the origin. Dimension only has meaning with regard to bodies, and the pretend inertial reference frame is not a body, and if it were a body, it would displace the universe, which is an absurd notion.
A more apt appellation for the mythical "Space-Time" of the theory of relativity would be "Nothing-Moving", for nothing moves in space-time, according to the theory. The jargon of Minkowski replaces a dynamic tri-dimensional mathematical model, with a static four-dimensional model. They are truly identical, and only the titles used to name the parts differ. There is no difference in form or conception, only in the titles and the illusive images which the titles may generate in those who allow themselves to be mystified by the absurd mathematical transformations.
Space must be "nothing" in the theory, for, though there are pseudo-explanations of the transformation of bodies and measurements of change in the theory, there is no explanation as to what happens to continuous "space" or continuous "time" between inertial reference frames and there is no definition of either independent entity, nor is there a non-circular definition of "Space-Time". The vast majority of the dimensions of an inertial reference frame are composed not of material, but of "empty space". Identifying this "empty space" semantically as a sum of "events" in "Space-Time" literally says nothing about observation. The only apt definition of Space-Time is thus "Nothing-Moving", which fits the static nature of the claim, and makes clear the absurdity of the theory.
The theory remains the theory of Lorentz--a static aether of changing psychological relations. After Poincaré, it is a pantheistic, metaphysical theory through and through. It is the simile of the cave, and is as primitive and religious as the cave dwellers. We are led to believe that God is a computer, who "transforms" static Nothing-Moving, mathematically, into our perceptions, which are delusions of nothing into something. Only it is worse, for there is nothing casting the shadows on the walls of our consciousness, nothing but nothing represented in numbers, numbers which symbolize units, units of nothing, for light's speed is used as a measure, but is itself only an abstraction, the division of non-existent space by non-existent time, which "division" cannot even be conceived, but is argued through analogy to that which can be conceived, such as a board cut in half. The speed of light is a number, a symbol, not a physical thing. The shamans of relativity theory paint bones with numbers and toss them through mathematical transformation onto the cave floor as oracles to the future. And the future, for them, is made of numbers. That, my understanding reader, is pure numerology, and is greatly destructive to our understanding of physical processes.
The gurus of relativity theory make use of political ploys to discredit legitimate refutations of their pet theory, while avoiding rational argument--while actually celebrating the irrationality of their theory. They argue the weaknesses of their theory as though they were strengths. They stigmatize those who would dare to criticize the notions of their hero, "Einstein".
The pseudo-relativists, who are in fact absolutists, role-play as experts on Nature. They attempt to condescend to any critics, and argue that disagreement with relativity theory is equivalent to misunderstanding, for the dogma is their sacred gospel. Since the advent of "logical positivism", with its grossly destructive hypocrisy, the pseudo-relativists find safe haven from the metaphysical delusions of their theory by stigmatizing those who would discredit the metaphysical fallacies of the theory with the currently negative label of "metaphysician". The fact that one must address Metaphysics in order to discredit Metaphysics eludes the dogmatic believers. Working on their side is the sociological and psychological barrier that Metaphysics has attached to it the negative label "nonsense", such that their already entrenched, dogmatic Metaphysics is sacrosanct and cannot be addressed. By way of analogy, consider that discrimination is illegal. Suppose that, in court, no one was permitted to argue that they have been discriminated against, for, contends the defense, discrimination is illegal!
The pseudo-relativists have the political power to mandate a specific set of dogmatic definitions, which subverts counter-argument against the pseudo-relativists' fallacious claims, for discussions of Metaphysics are off-limits and stigmatized as "nonsense", and the critic must operate under absurd definitions, which corrupt the meaning of his or her argument, and which absurd definitions sponsor the false beliefs of relativity theory. The pastor cannot be accused of stealing from the congregation, for thievery is a sin, and the pastor pursues virtue, by definition, despite his actions! To discredit "Space-Time", the critic must first use the term, and in so doing submit to a litany of false images. If the critic should change the definitions of terms to a rational semantic, he or she is immediately accused of not understanding the theory. The only interpretation tolerated is the dogma itself, precluding counter-argument as representing misunderstanding, even when internal inconsistencies in relativity theory are demonstrated. The notion of science thus becomes a political game of controlling the definitions through political power and excluding counter-argument. To refute the theory is to step outside of its definitions, and by the pseudo-relativists' accounts, to have misrepresented it. All of which reduces to the pseudo-relativists' religious belief that the special theory of relativity is correct, and, therefore, any who would argue against it, in spite of the validity of his or her arguments, must be misunderstanding the theory, for the pseudo-relativists pretend that their hero's theory is irreproachable, and the pseudo-relativists have, themselves, the fatal hubris to call it arrogance to voice the fatal flaws of the their theory, and tilt the bowed statue of their god. They continue to believe, and simply doubt their ability to understand or to argue the issue, and pretend that their dead heroes would have been able to win the argument, should they ever have confronted it.
Relativity theory affords us no explanation as to why or how our consciousness relates to our mythological center of mass, or how or why our center of mass should determine the length of rods we see and clocks we read with eyes as groups of particles in motion relative to our center of mass, at velocities near to, or perhaps exceeding, light speed relative to each other in our fictional center of mass inertial reference frame.
Relativity theory asserts that, relative to our fictional center of mass inertial reference frame, a moving rod should contract relative to the same rod at rest relative to our center of mass inertial reference frame. This is a fallacy based on false premises. No rod is at rest, all rods being a mental abstraction of jumbles of atomic and subatomic motions, which are themselves merely abstractions. A rod in motion is not, and cannot be, the same as a rod at rest. A rod at rest cannot exist in time, and a rod in motion is not the same thing from one moment to the next, but is something completely different, which we may delude ourselves into conceiving as remaining the same. Above all, one may ask, in what fashion can the length of rods and the rate of clocks obey a fictional center of mass, which is unrelated to our conscious observations, and relative to which everything, every other point of the Self and the universe, is in motion at speeds approaching luminal?
Given the fact only a single point is at rest in an "inertial system", an abstract point at that, the center of mass, how do we ever arrive at the boundaries of the body from which we draw center? Do I conclude a single atom is the basis of "body" for the center of mass of an inertial frame, or molecule, or mountain, or planet, or solar system, galaxy or universe?
The fallacy of the inertial reference frame fails on other grounds as well. An inertial reference frame supposes a "rest space and rest time" of xyzt extending from the origin of the fictitious center of mass. However, there exists no means to determine this rest extension-variation of relatively resting uniform motion.
Take for an example the Earth. Of course, such a system is not inertial, but then, no inertial system has ever been found. The definition of "inertial" is circular, and contradicts experiment. To discuss real cases of inertial systems is impossible.
We must first believe in the fictional center of mass of the abstract body we conceive of as the Earth. What represents the rest space and rest time of this consciously imagined, fictive center of mass? The top of a mountain seems to turn with the Earth in a delusion of relative rest. Why not establish that mountain top as "at rest" in the inertial reference frame of the center of mass of the Earth, with the line connecting the two points representing the orientation of x to serve as a basis for an inertial reference frame? But, then again, an airplane flying at an abstract constant altitude about the fictional equator against the relative rotation of the Earth would also seem to be at rest relative to the center of mass of the Earth, and we could call the imaginary line connecting it to the center of the mass the orientation of x, with equal validity.
So, which line is x? What certainty is there that either rest space exists? How can the same center of mass "rest" in two distinct "spaces", which spaces are in motion relative to each other? How can "spaces" be in motion, relative to each other? How can there be more than one "space"? Why does not each "space" displace every other "space"? To where can one universal space chase another universal space? How do we scale time and space, determine "straight lines", and set one increment of unit, and one unit, equal to another? The entire process is circular reasoning, and is never found in Nature, but this fact seemingly gives few of the pseudo-relativists pause.
In the mountain-center-of-mass-of-the-Earth-frame, the stars in the heavens rotate around the Earth each day--an inconceivably long voyage accomplished in a very short time, which requires that the stars move many times faster than the speed of light, which is supposedly impossible in relativity theory. An ad hoc third party is required to intervene in this dilemma. An abstract absolute space, which governs inertia, must be interpolated--universal rest must be interpolated from universal motion. The theory is blatantly self-contradictory.
Is it merely a coincidence that the stars seem to rotate as a group about the Earth, at superluminal velocities, or is there a preferred inertial reference frame? Why don't some stars rotate one way, and others, the other way? Why is there an obvious means to detect the axis of the Earth's rotation relative to the vast majority of the universe? Relativity theory cannot explain away these inconsistences with its precepts. If all motion is relative to observations and observers alone, and motion has no reality, the Ptolemaic system and the Copernican system must be reconciled in order to determine the frame of reference of the Earth, and in order to reconcile them, a preferred reference frame must be arbitrarily chosen, through the abstract interpolation of absolute space. Relativity theory demands an absolute reference frame, despite its advocates' protestations to the contrary.
The laws of probability contradict the theory of relativity. If all motions were purely relative, the universe would be in chaos, with stars, if any such bodies could exist, moving randomly relative to the Earth and each other. Some stars would cross the sky in one direction, while others swam the skies in the opposite direction, and still others would scuttle across the two-dimensional plane of our retinas at perpendiculars to those already mentioned. The Earth would not appear to turn at all, and the stars would not march with their torches as an organized army across the night, but would, by the laws of probability, likely appear as fireflies crisscrossing in the sky. The universe would in effect be perceived as a gas of stars in Brownian movement--and it may well be in "dimensions" (modes of order) and senses beyond our present conceptions, for, why should there be any limitations on velocity, when a star can dance across the universe, if one merely turns about? If relative motion is reciprocal, and a star crosses the heavens in the blink of an eye when I turn about, why aren't other stars doing so as a matter chance?
In the special theory of relativity, we are forced arbitrarily to choose the rest space which yields the least motion in the relatively moving body, which we arbitrarily assign as being at relative rest, and produces most directly rectilinear and unaccelerated motion in the supposedly moving abstraction of the other moving body. This is a matter of abstraction through circular reasoning, and violates the laws of reciprocity, for it must be an arbitrary choice made without basis in fact, and which arbitrary choice may controvert the relative motion or rest (the distinction being entirely arbitrary) of a third body. A space can arbitrarily be mapped to convert any observed motion into a uniform motion, but observation indicates that no observed motion is uniform in flat 3 space as normally conceptualized.
The pseudo-relativists are Platonic in their effort to blame the failure of ideal models to account for observed measurements on our inability to account for the complete ideal. They don't realize, or simply refuse to acknowledge, that the model is not only not ideal, it is a fallacy contradicted by observational fact. Though they pay lip service to the scientific mandate that a model be abandoned if it is contradicted empirically, they retain their fallacious models in spite of empirical contradiction, internal inconsistencies; and upon observational contradiction, declare that the models are ideal, and thus not contradicted by mundane observational fact! They further fail to acknowledge that such a Gestalt linkage between ideal supposition and actual fact is a metaphysical belief system, in their case, numerological, and by their hypocritical standards, "nonsense", per se.
If a body is able to circle the fictional center of mass, which casts out its nets as an inertial reference frame, and such is always the case, then a choice must be made, which cannot be made based on empirical evidence, as to the rotation and rest of the space of the center of mass of the observer. How are we to know if what we arbitrarily assign as rest space is not a system of coordinates which are in fact rotating through the actual rest space? Experiments can only disclose motion, and rest must be metaphysically interpolated into omnipresent motion. How are we to know if what we assign as rectilinear relative motion is not curvilinear? The laws of mechanics never hold good in any known system, in the inertial sense, and if they were to, they would confirm an absolute space, since the special theory of relativity compels us to presume that space is homogenous, isotropic, continuous and inertial of its nature.
In the psychological games of the special theory of relativity, we may be deluded by our physical make-up, being two-eyed creatures, both before us, with an internal ear which causes vertigo in rotation, to assume that the rotation and rest of space are obvious. And we feel all the more secure when we lay down lines on a sheet of paper and mark them as axes, but no certainty is to be had given the premises of the philosophy. In fact, certainty, and the theory itself, are precluded by observational measurements. However, rotation and rest are sensations of our psyches and not motions, or lack of motion, relative to "space". They result in consciousness as an image which relates in some fashion to the displacement of solid structures in the ear, buoyant in fluid, which impinge on nerve containing structures through kinetic buoyancy. A victim of 'Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo' can attest to the fact that such a sensation is a fiction.
Relativity theory assumes that a point which is taken to be at rest, cannot rotate in its space [Cf. Herbart]. We cannot observe points. Any center of mass is not a physical point, but an abstract point, unrelated to the observer as an entity. How can an inertial reference frame be assigned to that which is not real and cannot be observed, other than metaphysically? How can this delusional fiction of a non-rotating, rest pseudo-point affect the physical parameters of observed space, time and simultaneity, which are never observed in reality in the theory, but are instead conceptualized metaphysically as correlated to the abstract identity that celeritas, light speed, is distance divided by time? All an observer ever observes in reality are motions relative to the observer, even within every part of the observer itself. Rest is a psychological state related to the construction of our psyche, and its assemblage of sense information strongly correlated to the stimulus of our internal ear.
It is unknown and unknowable if points exist at all beyond nebulous human abstraction. It is also beyond our ken to know if a point can be conceived of as resting or rotating relative to space. The theory is irrational and contains numerous non sequiturs, mutually exclusive assertions, and false premises. Instead of science, it relies upon deceptive and anthropomorphic representations of our conceptualizations of spatial-temporal perception.
"Space", in reality, is only the discontinuous medium immediately surrounding the "point". Space is not the continuous universe. Points do not observe. Points are unrelated to anything other than pressures in the adjacent medium. Relative motion does not exist unless and until bodies interact and energy is expressed. An airplane flying in the sky has no motion relative to me. We do not exchange energy. There is no link between us other than in the world of conscious images. There is no relative motion evinced. The internal image I derive of the airplane from wave disturbances in the aether impinging upon structures within my eyes, light waves, which are not the airplane, and in fact are not even an internal conscious function, must not be confused with the reality of the airplane. We humans have a great gift in that our psyche does confuse its internal images with external facts, rendering us survival prone and successful in manipulating Nature, but we are knowledgeable enough to realize that the image is not the reality. Relative motion is only evinced when there is direct interaction between bodies, not when we internally perceive a change of relations. Relativity theory confuses impact and the exchange of the quantity of motion between bodies, with the abstraction of relative motion as a visual image, which abstraction reflects nothing externally real, but is our internal mode of self-awareness. Motion is perpetual, and universal, change, not the change of relations between abstract, hypothetical, immutable particles, which are not the building blocks of Nature, but the mythical dust of our imagination.
An inertial reference "frame" cannot be other than an abstract point, discontinuous and ultimately minute, thereby reducing it to nothing. In the sense that an inertial reference frame is discontinuous, it is matter, the point matter proposed by Boscovich and Herbart (Leucippus and Democritus). However, Boscovich's point matter had other qualities such as repulsion and attraction. The inertial reference frame of relativity theory is entirely abstract, a complete fiction of the pretend center of mass of a loosely defined "system", which has nowhere been observed, but which supposedly manifests the actuality of a tri-dimensional perception, and which is only theoretically extended through potentiality into a continuous and absolute aether, deceptively dubbed "Space-Time".
If an inertial reference frame were continuous, each inertial reference frame would displace every other inertial reference frame, which is absurd, as there is only one universe, incapable of being displaced. The mathematical transformation of "events" is a metaphysical delusion, not an observable. The link between frames is mathematical, not real, and cannot be confirmed by observation, and is therefore not science, but pure, abstract mathematics and poorly argued metaphysics of "what might be behind the observables" and never "what is observable". Shuffling the event cards creates an observably different deck, and the supposition of the same deck of intervals, existing differently as inertial systems, is metaphysical numerology. It is the search after Plato's "one among the many", the identity linking, in our understandings, observably different forms. It is a vain search for "Nothing-Moving", the absolute and unchanging world of invariance and interval.
We cannot see or know what happens in the "mathematical transformation", for it is the function of a set of artificial rules, and not a physical occurrence. We simply create two worlds in abstraction, inertial system I and inertial system II, and artificially bind them together with the Gestalt linkage of prescribed rules, pretending that mathematical processes mirror some happening in reality, which is yet inexplicable. I can observe a lamb transform into a sheep. The elements and processes of a mathematical transformation are an artificial set of human rules, not extant means and ends in the observable physical world. In a "mathematical transformation", there is a reality A and a reality B, with nothing in between the two. In short, there is no transformation. Though anything may be compared to anything else, the comparison is psychological, not physical. No extant thing can be "transformed" into another extant thing, for a thing cannot be other than itself.
Nothing in reality is transformed in a "mathematical transformation". There are, rather, two distinct realities, A and B, and A never becomes B, nor B, A. The so-called "transformation" does not occur or exist. A so-called "mathematical transformation" is always a COMPARISON, and never a TRANSFORMATION. Wherefore, the Nothing-Moving of so-called "Space-Time" is a Gestalt, numerological delusion and not a physical reality. Space-Time is built of artificial mathematical rules, and is not physically real, nor psychologically tangible, but hovers as a vague wish in the imagination as a pretend, though not seen, linking of two or more distinct images, and the linkage is Gestalt, not continuous, for there is no mechanical processing, but a gap filled yet unfilled by artificial rules--definitions. The pseudo-relativist simply pretends that this artificial Gestalt linkage symbolizes absolute reality.
Since Space-Time is supposedly composed of at least four dimensions, and each dimension is of infinite proportions, Space-Time also requires an infinity to at least the fourth power, again displacing the universe at least three times, which is absurd. The abstraction of a four-dimensional manifold should not be confused with physical reality. The freedom of motion found in these multiple dimensions is psychological and not physical. [See: Boscovich, "Hence, the number of other points of space is an infinity of the third order; & thus the probability is infinitely greater with an infinity of the third order, when we are concerned with any other particular instant of time."] Things exist of themselves, not as parts of a manifold. Stating that this or that has position in the abstract is going beyond what is observed, into what is conceptualized, metaphysically, numerologically.
The theory is built on "mathematical transformation", which remains undefined in terms of physical reality. No two "units" of anything in reality are the same. Points are undefined. Calculus is based on curves and derivatives, which do not exist in reality, the bending bow of an unseen numerological god crossing arrows across a surreal plane. What is a "mathematical transformation", and what has it to do with reality? What is an "inertial reference frame", and what has it to do with reality? How can constants be added to the coordinates of one frame to accomplish a uniform change of scale through the multiplication of the units of time and space by a quantity to another frame? Under such conditions, the "frame" is a delusion of words, where variables are confused with dimensions, resulting in an anti-dimensional absolute in which light has no motion.
The special theory of relativity compels us to assume that space and time are subject to mathematical transformation, while proving to us that they are not.
If an observer witnesses a body in motion contract and its clocks slow, he or she must ask himself or herself, "what happened to space and time outside the body?" The same observer witnesses at least two sets of bodies and clocks "moving with respect to each other" and can suppose his or her "inertial reference frame" to be composed of either, for, through "mathematical transformation", they are supposed to be equivalent. Obviously, it is variable bodies and clocks which are assumed to contract and dilate, and not continuous space or continuous time. Obviously, space and time are not transforming, but rather bodies and clocks are transforming, otherwise, the mathematical transformation would be without meaning, as the units would not be equivalent. Since the theory requires reciprocity, relative space and time do not exist, for there are no parameters to either. Only bodies are limited in their extension and they supposedly mutate relative to a continuous space based on an observer's perspective, which perspective is a conceptualization based on imagined measurements made with fictional instruments, and does not signify an observation at all, but a grand delusion.
"Observers" in the special theory of relativity do not observe! They conceptualize the information a false God, the pseudo-physicist, spoon feeding them fantasies, "tells" them to form into an image which is not observed, but created through the mathematical rationalization of irrational assertions. The mandated quasi-geometry of the pretend light synchronization procedure cannot be performed. It is an impossible, self-contradicting delusion.
An inertial reference frame is not observed nor measured, but interpolated into the known universe of perpetual and universal motion as false "rest", which is not observed or measured, but is a mental fiction, which directly contradicts observation and measurement. A physicist should not rely on the delusion that a physically contradicted model is an "idealization". Nor should a physicist pretend that measurements are being taken according to an impossible light synchronization procedure, when no such measurements have been, or can be, taken.
Albert's version of Poincaré's theory is in no way different from Lorentz' theory. It is apparatus which supposedly contract and slow in uniform motion through absolute space in either theory, not contracting "space", nor dilating "time", despite the knowingly false appellations of Poincaré and the deceptive jargon of those who followed after him.
If the process of "mathematical transformation" is presumed to be valid, then there must be a presumption of absolute space and time to serve as the substratum for units. This conclusion is similar to Klein's proof that Euclidean Geometry and non-Euclidean Geometry are projections of the same image through a different lens, with the subject being observed remaining absolute, in either event. Units, whether taken to be transformed or not, are always transformations, or abstractions, of the absolute, in the theory. The observer's "rest" units are transformed "absolute" units, or abstractions maintaining absolute geometric form, just as are the observer's moving units in kinematic form, lest the "mathematical transformation" of the observer's "moving units" into the dimensions of "rest units", and vice versa, would be without meaning. The ratio of rest to moving abstract units, viz. the mathematical transformation, is a formal definition of the absolute. It is a set of metaphysical, numerological quasi-Natural Laws. It is the quantification, and its existence is the qualification, of the absolute of geometric form, be it the "resting system" of Lorentz and Albert, or the "Space-Time" of universal translation of Poincaré and Minkowski.
That one object is shorter than another, either in length or duration, indicates that both are abstractions of the absolute, which is without units. This is the opposite of reality, but it is nevertheless the process of the special theory of relativity in practice. The absolute is not to be taken as either shorter or longer, rather, the absolute is tacitly taken as justification for the comparison. This is so, because no two things are the same, except as they compare to the presumption of an absolute standard. Relativity does not exist. Comparing one shoe to another, without the assumption of an abstract standard, is without meaning, as no two same things can be found to compare.
Not only is an apple not an orange, but no two "oranges" are the same, nor are two sides of the same orange the same. Therefore, we can only compare their "weight" and "size" against an abstract absolute, which we may misguidedly assume to be relative. We, as humans, assume that each has "weight" and then twist the assumption of the absolute of weight into the false relative of comparative weight. In either mental justification of our analysis, we are making an abstraction of the assumed absolute. We are asking, "What is this or that orange relative to what 'weight' is?" We then establish units, and transform one orange into the other through ratios, or through "mathematical transformation". This transformation is a conceptualized comparison and does not occur in reality. It is a subjective comparison, and not a physical transformation.
Relativity theory, Lorentz', or Poincaré's, does the same. Length and duration are given as units, which are abstractions of the absolutes of continuous space and continuous time, and then compared, or "mathematically transformed", through ratios, into each other. The presumption that there are such units as length and duration demands the existence of absolutes such as space and time, which cannot in themselves exist as discontinuous units. Relativity theory does not assert relative space and time, rather, it posits relative lengths and durations in abstract ratios of abstractions of absolute space and time, in the material form of the limited extension of bodies.
What is a unit of God's wisdom? What is a unit of God's justice? Wisdom, justice, space and time have no face. They exist to us as absolutes, which we generate abstractly as conceptions when we observe phenomena, but are not the phenomena or even inherent in the phenomena. We can only compare ratios of our abstractions of absolutes, if we assume such absolutes exist. That is what relativity theory does and that is why it fails logically and is self-contradictory. It assumes absolute space and time and then creates abstract figures of length and duration in material bodies. Albert confessed shortly before his death,
"I regard it as entirely possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e. on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, including the gravitation theory."
[In reality, outside the myths of the special theory of relativity, though, the process is the opposite. We perceive the limited extension of bodies, and abstractly conceive of the absolute of continuous space.]
By definition, the inertial reference frame is composed of material rods of limited extension (though they are gross distortions of anything real) and discontinuous material clocks--uniform motions, and not continuous space or continuous time. This is abundantly clear in the 1905 paper, and was confused in Minkowski's rendition, for which Albert is popularly given credit today, and which Albert adopted in the general theory, where space becomes a mutable real agent with a firm hold on the feet of the masses.
It is immediately apparent that no object can be said to be at rest in the "inertial reference frame" of another. It is also apparent that pretend objects which are in motion relative to each other can each be assumed to be at rest relative to a consciousness--an abstract center of mass, the choice between the two of "being at rest" being arbitrary and necessitating the establishment of a preferred frame of reference, and contingent upon the artificial parameters of the sense of Self. Thus, we realize that a center of mass has either no inertial reference frame, or an absolute inertial reference frame, but never a relative inertial reference frame.
We must also concede that no clocks or measuring rods can be known to be at rest, as we cannot determine rest space or rest time. Rest time and rest space then must be arbitrarily assigned to two points separated from each other, and this arbitrary decision must equate to the determination of an absolute frame of the observer, which conflicts with the general theory. One must interpolate rest into motion, which is absurd.
Reciprocal mathematical transformation, in the sense of the special theory of relativity, is a fallacy of variables posing as immutable dimensions.
How are we to measure time? What object remains unchanged to serve as the yardstick for measuring time? Do we measure time with a clock? A clock is that which exhibits change. All things are thus clocks, and yet no thing is a clock, as no thing travels through time, but is annihilated in the passage. The fiery Logos of Heraclitus consumes all.
Relativity theory asserts that "moving clocks" are observed to run slower, and thus time slows. All things exhibit constant change, and thus there is no uniform measure to change other than a constancy of perpetual and complete change. An abstract body which is taken for a clock at one instant is something else the next. There can be no clock at rest relative to any fictional center of mass of an observer, nor can any clock exist throughout the theoretical time it is supposed to referee.
So, what then are the spans of xyz and t? They are relations in consciousness of images, not of absolute, or relative, space or time, which are absolute to each consciousness in its fantasy of rest, but are really mere relations of things consciousness generates as the process of being conscious. The entire theory of relativity is an illusion, a fantasy of mutually exclusive, schizophrenic delusions, which proceed non sequitur from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Observers, as defined in the theory, nowhere exist. Space, time, motion, simultaneity, measuring rods, and clocks, as defined in the theory, are complete absurdities.
The theory is shrouded in mystery, not because it is difficult to understand, or to explain, but because Albert did not understand its psychological and metaphysical development or meaning, and put forth his wife's numerology as though it afforded an explanation of physical phenomena, though it did not.
Not only does relativity theory incorporate absolute time and absolute space, in a codified system of abstract mathematical "transformation", the theory defines the succession of events at each point as absolute, which they are not, while defining simultaneity as relative, in the theory, which it is not, in the theory.
From at least the age Greeks onward, there has been an argument over the philosophical separation of cause and effect, which is translated as an absolute succession of before and after at a given point in space. Many have argued that cause and effect are simultaneous. Since we supposedly dispensed with simultaneity in relativity theory (the modern view codifies it, and simultaneity remains mistakenly absolute), cause and effect must be viewed as relative, and so, therefore, must succession, or before and after. We cannot assert what happens before and after at a point in space in relativity theory, or even assign any meaning to the concept of before and after. Let's reduce relativity theory to an absurdity (it shouldn't take long):
How can before and after be viewed as relative? How can a candle burn up, which burns down? Does the arrow of time ever boomerang?
Since our "observer" can be naught but a consciousness, the observer exists as a Life Cycle. We can conceive of a Life of consciousness as a pyramid (or any other shape, such as a pop bottle, tube, whatever. . .). Conceive of a moment's consciousness as a square, or slice cross-section of the pyramid parallel to its base, encompassing the total of an observer's conscious relations at that moment, on the plane of observation.
Assume Life at the moment of death to be the largest square our sample pyramid Life of consciousness will achieve, filled with the most memories and relations. Death is the base of the pyramid.
Further consider the Life of consciousness at the moment of the first conscious relation to be a point. The birth of thought is the apex or vertex of the pyramid. Connect the largest square, the base (at the moment of death) with the point apex (at the moment of the first relation), and you form a pyramid, and every step of the pyramid is a slice of Life, or moment of the present consciousness.
Adapting a concept of Abbott's, and the transcendental geometers', consider the Eyes of our sample consciousness to be a plane surface, say a table top. The pyramid can pass through the table and consciousness will grasp it slice by slice. All that the Eyes are capable of witnessing is that part of the pyramid which intersects the two dimensional plane of the table top, as the pyramid passes through the table. Pass the pyramid through the plane point first, and our "observer" will open his or her Eyes, consciousness, as a point, or first relation, followed by an increasingly larger square of conscious relations (memories and sense perceptions, though no distinction can be proven between the two) growing with each passing moment to the base of the pyramid, the moment of death.
However, since the Eyes of the Life Cycle can only witness the square of relations of the present, which is built of relations including the observer's sense of before and after, which is independent of any absolute before and after, our observer will experience exactly the same sequence of succession, whether we pass the pyramid through the table point first, or base first, and no "observer" can ever assert that there is an absolute before or after (or even a succession at all, for what if the pyramid is a whole over which the Eyes pass?).
The observer perceives consciousness, and succession is only a feeling, or quality of the relations which co-exist by observation, not existence, per se. Consciousness gives the feeling that one thing observed is real and another but a memory, but all are relations co-extant to the observer and the feeling of succession is a delusion resulting from conscious relations and not absolute succession, and conscious relations would exhibit the same sensation-delusion of before and after should time run forward or backward. In reality, even this grows beyond fact, as we have no firm definition of what a conscious "moment" should mean. Psychologists have speculated that a conscious moment is really a span of duration, and thus relativity theory cannot even be considered, other than to preclude its possibility.
Consider a psychological experiment. Show an observer a short movie of a pool of milk on the floor, with the milk raising up from the floor into a tilted glass in the main character's hand, and filling it as the actor tilts his glass into an upright position. Then ask the observer to explain what he or she has witnessed. The observer will tell you that he or she saw a movie played backwards of an actor pouring a glass of milk onto the floor. However, you may assert that is not what the observer witnessed. You may believe that the observer reconstructed what he or she witnessed into relations of before and after which are the opposite of reality. Show another "observer" a single frame of the middle of the movie (equivalent to a glimpse of the present in our consciousness). This second observer will also conclude that the movie is one of an actor pouring a glass of milk onto the floor, whether the movie be running backwards, or forwards. Before and after thus appear as relations of consciousness, which are not absolute even to a sole observer, and which have no physical meaning. I have left out the difficulties imposed by the transference of information through time, such as the passage of light from position to position, for simplicity's sake.
The single frame of the movie is equivalent to a square slice of the pyramid intersecting the plane of consciousness. The actor's thoughts, were they able to be captured on film--his or her sense of relation, would remain the same in a still frame, whether the movie be running forwards or backwards, and the succession would feel the same to the actor in either event. Whether our lives proceed in one direction, or the other, through Time (which is our conscious relations), or whether they proceed at all, can never be determined, for we would observe the same consciousness in any event; and would construct the same relations, which are psychological constructions, and not absolutes.
Therefore, the special theory of relativity is a fallacy, which depends on numerous absolutes, which absolutes can never be proven, and which false theory depends on inertial reference frames, which are nothing but mathematical abstractions, nowhere to be perceived beyond the fairy tales written in numbers on the blackboard (numerology).
Albert wrote to his friend Besso in 1954 and admitted that his theories were likely without any merit whatsoever. The following year, Albert died.
It is my intention in this first book to catalogue the development of the psychological and metaphysical theory, which we call, "relativity theory" from the period of John Locke onward in order to prove that it is an anti-physical, mystical and numerological theory of consciousness, for which neither Albert Einstein nor Mileva Einstein-Marity holds priority, and which he never had the intellect to comprehend. Relativity theory is a Greek theory of consciousness. The second volume to this work will document the theory from the period of the ancients through to Christiaan Huygens.
The casual reader will find the smoking gun that Albert did not originate relativity theory, as it is popularly conceived, by simply reading the quotations herein from Stallo, published and widely read in 1848 and 1882. I hope that there is something here for every reader, from die hard Albert hero-worshiper, to mathematician, sci-fi fan to philosopher, and all sensible people.
Please keep in mind that relativity theory is the theory of relations in consciousness. An "observer" must represent a consciousness. Time and space are manifestations of the relations which generate consciousness. They only have meaning as interpretations of relation. It is not a real-world belief system, but a psychological one. It is ideally a default belief, which admits of no objective reality.
The average person is probably unaware that the theory claims that your eyes, and the letters you read only seem to you to exist at the same time. There is avowed no real simultaneity. The theory asserts that another observer may not see them as existing together in the same time as you perceive them. When you walk your dog, another observer may not see you and your dog as existing in the same moment. Of course, no proof of same exists outside the tabula rasa of a blackboard, or can even be rationally conceived of existing. But you aren't supposed to know that. Just be happy that you are too stupid to understand, or so some might say. After all, if it makes no sense, and it's pure numerology preached by a clown, it has to be genius! That is perhaps one reason why the equation E = mc^2 is promoted as representing the theory. The other concepts, such as the lack of simultaneity, would likely be rejected quite quickly by sensible people, as being transparently ridiculous.
If you doubt that relativity theory is a modern day form of numerology, even more steeped in number worship than Pythagoras' mythology, ask someone knowledgeable in the theory to offer a definition of Space-Time, energy, inertia, or mass, which doesn't degrade into the numerology of numbers, equations and/or mathematical identities. The theory of relativity cannot tell you what any of those terms mean, other than to repeat mathematical identities in which the terms circularly define each other. It doesn't describe anything real. There exists no physical demonstration of an "inertial reference frame" in the real world. No one has ever observed "Space-Time". There is excessive talk of manifolds and vectors in an effort to mask the utter lack of an explanation, with numerological gibberish. Don't be fooled by the gobble-dy-gook. The theory explains nothing. It is an axiomatic, Petitio Principii argument employed to compose a surreal world of the constant speed of light, in which springy space replaces cause and effect. It is a grand, numerological cop out to ignorance, touted in lofty language and perpetuated with priestly arrogance and self-contradictory, institutionalized dogma.
Why do people catagorize reality, as it appears in conscious images, as "absolute" and "relative"? There are several reasons (the assumptions which follow are not mine) among them we find: 1. The religious, Tertullian, Spinoza, Newton, etc., associate "absolute space" with God. Since God is continuous, God cannot move. Therefore, all bodies move relative to the unmoving body of God, "absolute space", and are animated with "spirit" or the breath of the body of God. Force is the conscious will of God, and is therefore mysterious. Stallo removed the absolute space and composed it of pure "spirit". Newton was an absolutist and Stallo was a relativist. The difference is the concept of observation. The absolutist believes that the unobserved clock records ratios of absolute time, while never defining same. The relativist ducks the question, "what does an unobserved clock measure?" The absolutist believes that the unobserved body extends through ratios of absolute space, while never defining same. The relativist ducks the question, "what does an unobserved measuring rod measure?" Both arguments boil down to the same abstraction. Both assert that bodies and their changes measure abstract ratios of continuous absolute space and time, in discontinuous, equivalent, encrypted units. Cartesians assume that bodies are extended and that bodies measure only themselves, with no space measured or implied. Likewise, Cartesians hold that changes in bodies, called time by the absolutists and relativists, are changes in bodies, and do not imply or measure units or ratios of "absolute time".
2. Some absolutists believe that absolute space is filled with substance, that free space is a plenum, and not a vacuum. They generally distinguish the substance, usually called "aether", from absolute space itself, as being a quiescent fluid of particles. It is the absurdity that absolute space exists without the aether that is supposed to fill it, which opened the door for the word games of the relativists. There is no need of void between particles in the plenum, only motion, the omnipresent change, of which the present is composed.
The relativists play games with words and use the word "space" to substitute for aether, while affording no explanation as to what "space" is. They claim a distinction without making one. They had no need to define space, because the absolutists foolishly associated space with body, then semantically separated it from body.
The space of the relativist is identical to the space of the absolutist. The space of the absolutist is actually the body of the aether. There is no logical distinction. The relativists dropped the word aether, while maintaining the concept, and called aether, "empty space". The absolutists employed two words for the same thing. The relativists stole credit for theories of the absolutists by dropping one synonym and claiming a distinction where there was none. Cartesians deny "space" per se and identify the "extension" of bodies and bodies alone. Cartesians also believe the universe to be a plenum, but do not believe there is any absolute space or time. Bodies together form a continuous universe and move, change, amongst themselves, being their motion. For a Cartesian, there is no need of an unmoving substratum to define this motion. The Cartesians hold space and time to be superfluous conceptions, derived from the limited extension of bodies.
But what if bodies are not extended in any sense, which our conscious image of them implies? What if dimension is the fluff of consciousness and not the form of reality? To what degree is the universe, universal? What if the underlying principle of Nature is difference, not identity? What if that which did not change, could not be grasped by our consciousness? What if the permanent is transparent to us, for we could find in it no difference to excite our conscious images? These are the dreams that absolutes, relatives, and motions are made of. . . .
How does such a ridiculous relativity theory as the special theory of relativity survive? It survives simply because those in authority have had the power to suppress dissenting and opposing points of view. The "theory" is a religion, which requires no proof. It is filled with mysteries, which we are asked to accept ontologically, and which compel us to probe no deeper into causes than abstract pseudo-appearances, crazy chimeras of mathematical transformation. The educational process requires indoctrination into the numerological religion, and society stigmatizes those who would be so bold as to disagree with the religion.
The priests protect each other. The most ridiculous speculations receive no rebuttal, if they are put forward by "respected authorities". In this way, the priests have no fear that their ideas will receive criticism. Should significant criticism arise, it is effectively suppressed in the peer review journals. The priests enjoy a pretty position of power, and their speculations become more ridiculous with each incarnation.
Imagine yourself in their position. If you wrote a paper, and were (perhaps are) a respected authority, how could you best maintain your respected status? There is enormous pressure on you to publish. Would it be in your best interest to suppress any criticism? Would you have the power to do so? How is competition suppressed in any human endeavor? Is it possible that there is tacit agreement to agree with whatever the heroes of the field put forth? Is it human to reject the arguments of dissenters with ad hominem personal attacks in order to avoid the validity of their criticisms and maintain privileged status over truth? Are those with opposing views attacked politically? Are careers at stake over ideas? Is there truly a free exchange of ideas?
Why are the same ideas regurgitated book after book in the post-general relativity period? I cannot believe that there is a lack of creativity, or a lack of healthy skepticism. I do believe there is a pervasive fear of ridicule. Since a critic, or innovator, who would seek to change standard definitions, and to instill new ideas, is subject to being labeled as one who does not understand, or worse, and permanently stigmatized, there is tremendous pressure on those who publish to simply repeat what has already been accepted, and to not venture into the woods without a substantial volume of "case law" to support his or her views. Not only must new ideas be reduced to old ones, they must be reduced to dogmatic definitions and restricted to the views of specific accepted authorities. We have far too much respect for authority, for every authority is eventually proven wrong. It is seemingly inevitable.
Science in the Twentieth Century suffered under the yoke of the cult of personality. Schizophrenic "heroes" uttered nonsense, and their adoring fans doubted their own sensibilities and accepted the myth that the truth could elude the intelligent and required a certain form of madness to be understood. It was quite tragically a century of hero worship. Governments became mass murderers and science abandoned many of the enormous advances made in the Nineteenth Century. We were asked to accept the 'newspeak' of 'counter-intuitive' truth, 'space-time', 'anti-matter', 'virtual particles' and 'big bang'.
Compare the physics of Faraday with the numerology of Albert. Just when the materialists had opened the door to social justice and practical science, the flakey heroes of the Twentieth Century shut the valve, mass murdered millions and degraded science into mysticism. Society became increasingly bureaucratic and authority gained increasing powers. The process is reversible. I hope we can begin a new century with greater tolerance of differences of opinion, and abandon the grossly destructive hero worship of the Twentieth Century.
You might wonder what you will find quoted in this book. The primary focus is on works related to the principle of relativity written before the Einsteins submitted their 1905 paper on the subject, and related to that paper. Popular myth holds that the infamous formula E = mc^2 is very significant. It is not very significant, nor is it original to the Einsteins. Though there are a couple of allusions to E = mc^2 in this work, there is not much on the equation in what follows. The subject will be covered in another volume. Several volumes may appear, documenting Albert's career-long pattern of repeating what others had published before him.
You will find herein proof that neither Minkowski, nor the Einsteins, hold priority on the concept of four-dimensional space-time. H. G. Wells, in 1895, expressly stated it in a popular novel, long before Minkowski claimed priority. And long before Wells was Stallo, who, in 1848, stated,
"Space and Time are both abstractions, i.e. they are only, inasmuch as the understanding forcibly keeps them asunder, though their truth is their being in one, their inseparability in spite of their distinctness."
"Hence, the number of other points of space is an infinity of the third order; & thus the probability is infinitely greater with an infinity of the third order, when we are concerned with any other particular instant of time."
Joseph Larmor, in 1900, raised space-time's significance to relativity theory and expressly called it a "continuum", long before Minkowski. Poincaré established the four-dimensional analysis of the 'Lorentz Transformation', before Minkowski, or Albert. Menyhért (Melchior) Palágyi, in 1901, published Neue Theorie des Raumes und der Zeit [reprinted in Zur Weltmechanik, Beiträge zur Metaphysik der Physik von Melchior Palágyi, mit einem Geleitwort von Ernst Gehrcke; (herein reprinted, as well)]. Before Palágyi was Henri Bergson, who wrote in 1888,
"in a word, we create for them a fourth dimension of space, which we call homogenous time, and which enables the movement of the pendulum, although taking place at one spot, to be continually set in juxtaposition to itself."25
Prior to Bergson, Ernst Mach wrote in 1866,
"Now, I think that we can go still farther in the scale of presentations of space and thus attain to presentations whose totality I will call physical space.
It cannot be my intention here to criticize our conceptions of matter, whose insufficiency is, indeed, generally felt. I will merely make my thoughts clear. Let us imagine, then, a something behind (unter) matter in which different states can occur; say, for simplicity, a pressure in it, which can become greater or smaller.
Physics has long been busied in expressing the mutual action, the mutual attraction (opposite accelerations, opposite pressures) of two material particles as a function of their distance from each other--therefore of a spatial relation. Forces are functions of the distance. But now, the spatial relations of material particles can, indeed, only be recognized by the forces which they exert one on another.
Physics, then, does not strive, in the first place, after the discovery of the fundamental relations of the various pieces of matter, but after the derivation of relations from other, already given, ones. Now, it seems to me that the fundamental law of force in nature need not contain the spatial relations of the pieces of matter, but must only state a dependence between the states of the pieces of matter.
If the positions in space of the material parts of the whole universe and their forces as functions of these positions were once known, mechanics could give their motions completely, that is to say, it could make all the positions discoverable at any time, or put down all positions as functions of time.
But, what does time mean when we consider the universe? This or that "is a function of time" means that it depends on the position of the vibrating pendulum, on the position of the rotating earth, and so on. Thus, 'All positions are functions of time' means, for the universe, that all positions depend upon one another.
But since the positions in space of the material parts can be recognized only by their states, we can also say that all the states of the material parts depend upon one another.
The physical space which I have in mind--and which, at the same time, contains time in itself--is thus nothing other than dependence of phenomena on one another. A complete physics, which would know this fundamental dependence, would have no more need of special considerations of space and time, for these latter considerations would already be included in the former knowledge."26
Edgar Allen Poe believed,
"A rational cause for the phaenomenon, I maintain that Astronomy has palpably failed to assign: -- but the considerations through which, in this Essay, we have proceeded step by step, enable us clearly and immediately to perceive that Space and Duration are one."27
Poe was under the spell Alexander von Humboldt (and opium). Humboldt stated "Mach's Principle" long before Mach, but long before Humboldt, Boscovich stated it. I shall return to Humboldt when I address the general theory of relativity. Humboldt's influence on Stallo, Poe and the general intellectual community toward relativism cannot be emphasized strongly enough!
D'Alembert let us in on a secret back in 1754,
"As I've already said, it is not possible to conceive of more than three dimensions. However, a brilliant wit with whom I am acquainted considers duration a fourth dimension, and that the product of time multiplied by solidity would, in some sense, be a product of four dimensions. This idea is perhaps contestable, but it appears to me to be of some merit, even if it is only that of novelty."
Lagrange worked out a new mechanics with time as the fourth dimension, introducing the square root of negative one and thereby adding a degree of freedom analogous to a geometry of four dimensions.
The relational image of time to space and motion is an ancient conception. When Minkowski, in 1908, uttered the infamous words,
"Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a union of the two will preserve an independent reality,"
his words were not only unoriginal, they were trite.
Space-time curvature will be addressed in another volume.
What you don't find here, you will find in the supplements to this volume, which first volume is primarily devoted to the special theory of relativity.
Albert Einstein was not a founder of the numerology we call the special theory of relativity, which is truly a theory of encrypted absolutivity. He was a cheerleader for it, who claimed credit for every touchdown. I won't just aver this, if you read on, I'll prove it to you. . . which is to say, the haunted ghosts will speak for themselves!
Every article herein appeared in print, in public, before the Einsteins submitted their manuscript. If you are short of time and patience, I suggest you skip ahead and read the later works. I included much material which the casual reader may find redundant and superfluous. My goal is to document the evolution of the ideas and the pervasiveness of the concepts and phrases throughout recorded human history. Albert was not the only one to repeat what others had written, without giving credit. The ancient example of the relative motion of a ship was repeated ad nauseam, as Stallo pointed out. The ship later became a train, after its invention, and the explanation of relative rest in a train, repeated again and again, may cause motion sickness in my poor readers. My personal favorites are Leibniz, Boscovich, Berkeley, Herbart, Lange, Stallo and Mach. Mach rejected Albert's relativity theory and asked not to be associated with the dogmatic nonsense, in spite of the fact that Joseph Petzoldt sought to give him his due.28 I ask for Mach's posthumous forgiveness, and raise in my defense the fact that Albert cited Mach as a source of ideas.29 However, Mach's ideas were not very different from those of the earlier Boscovich. Each of those whom I have singled out had a keen mind and a healthy repulsion for any dogmatic worship of authority over sense.
The math of the so-called "Lorentz Transformation" followed the lineage of Boscovich, Voigt, FitzGerald, Larmor, Poincaré, Langevin and Lorentz. Everett stated expressly at least as early as 1883, in anticipation of Lange,
"We cannot even assert that there is any such thing as absolute rest, or that there is any difference between absolute rest and uniform straight movement of translation."30
"[T]here is no test by which we can distinguish between absolute rest and uniform velocity of translation".31
In the 1700's, Boscovich called this the "Principle of Invariance", and further asserted that bodies in translatory motion contract as to length and dilate as to time.
Herbert Spencer wrote a fantastic treatise on relativity theory in his, "First Principles of a New System of Philosophy", which is too lengthy to reprint here in its entirety, and which suffers greatly from abridgement. I highly recommend this work, as it covers such a broad spectrum, from the religious to the profane, and beyond. Many university libraries have copies of it. Each edition offers its own rewards, and drawbacks. I suggest cross-referencing various incarnations of the work to any serious student. The same holds true for Karl Pearson's The Grammar of Science, 2nd. Ed., Adam and Charles Black, London, (1900), from which the Einsteins took much. When one reads Pearson and Spencer, who truly understood relativistic concepts, the Einsteins' work is seen for the watered down tripe that it is.
Do not deny these thinkers their right to recognition and the priority of their thoughts!
1. W. Kantor, Relativistic Propagation of Light, Coronado Press, Lawrence, Kansas, (1976).
2. L. Lange, Das Inertialsystem vor dem Forum der Naturforschung: Kritisches und Antikritisches, Philosophische Studien, 20, (1902), p. 18.
3. J. B. Stallo, Die Begriffe und Theorieen der modernen Physik, Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig, (1901), pp. 205, 331.
4. J. Violle, Lehrbuch der Physik, Julius Springer, Berlin, (1892), p. 90; cited in J. Stachel, Ed., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2, Princeton University Press, (1989), p. 255, Note 13.
5. H. Poincaré, Wissenschaft und Hypothese, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, (1904), pp. 113-114, 119, especially 243, 340.
6. F. Hausdorff, translator, annotator, Über die Bewegung der Körper durch den Stoss / Über die Centrifugalkraft, Ostwald's Klassiker der exakten Wissenschaften, Nr. 138, Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, (1903), pp. 64, 73.
7. A. A. Michelson, The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous ether, American Journal of Science, 22, (1881), pp. 120-129.
8. A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science, 34, (1887), pp. 333-345.
9. L. Lange, Über die wissenschaftliche Fassung der Galilei'schen Beharrungsgesetzes, Philosophische Studien, 2, (1885), pp. 266-297, 539-545.
L. Lange, Ueber das Beharrungsgesetz, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, mathematisch-physische Classe, 37, (1885), pp. 333-351.
L. Lange, Die geschichtliche Entwickelung des Bewegungsbegriffs und ihr voraussichtliches Endergebniss. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Kritik der mechanischen Principien von Ludwig Lange. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, (1886).
L. Lange, Das Inertialsystem vor dem Forum der Naturforschung, Leipzig, (1902).
L. Lange, Das Inertialsystem vor dem Forum der Naturforschung: Kritisches und Antikritisches, Philosophische Studien, 20, (1902) pp. 1-71.
E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics, Open Court, (1960), pp. 291-297.
E. Gehrcke, Kritik der Relativitätstheorie, Hermann Meusser, Berlin, (1924), pp. 17, 30-34.
E. Gehrcke, Über den Sinn der Absoluten Bewegung von Körpern, Sitzberichten der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, XII, Jahrgang, (1912), pp. 209-222,.
E. Gehrcke, Über die Koordinatensystem der Mechanik, Verhandlung der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, XV, Jahrgang, (1913), pp. 260-266.
H. Seeliger, Vierteljahrsschrift der astronomischen Gesellschaft, XXII, p. 252.
10. I. Newton, Principia, Book III, General Scholium; see also: I. Newton, Opticks, Query 31. Note that Newton sought to cover up his initial statements after the publication of his book began, and manually, literally cut away his pantheism from those books already printed, which is to say those books which he could get his hands on. However, Leibnitz received an intact copy, and issued a polemic against Newton's occult beliefs. Can you imagine the terror and paranoia Newton felt, when it was exposed that he had gone against Church dogma? What else could have driven him to his undignified efforts to hide his beliefs?
11. K. Pearson, The Grammar of Science, 2nd. Ed., Adam and Charles Black, London, (1900), pp. 533-535.
12. See, Tertullian, De Anima; Confer: St. Augustine, De haeresibus ad Quodvultdeus, 86.
13. K. S. Latourette, A History of Christianity, Harper & Brothers, New York, (1953), pp.125-128.
14. See, The Oxford English Dictionary, "spirit".
15. See, Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest, a Biography of Isaac Newton, Chapter 8, "Rebellion".
16. C. Neumann, Ueber die Principien der Galilei-Newton'schen Theorie, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, (1870).
Whittaker cites: "Festschrift Boltzmann, Leipzig, (1904), p. 252 ";
and Mach cites: "Ber. der königl. sächs. Ges. der Wiss., 1910, III".
17. H. Streintz, Die physikalischen Grundlagen der Mechanik, Leipzig, (1883).
18. René Descartes Principles of Philosophy, trans. by V. R. Miller and R. P. Miller, Boston, (1983), p. 53.
19. H. Bergson, Duration and Simultaneity, Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., Indianapolis, New York, Kansas City, (1965), pp. 33-34; quoting H. More, Scripta Philosophica, (1679), II, 248, where More was responding to Des Cartes' law of reciprocity, Principles, II, 29 & 30.
20. V. Bjerknes, Fields of Force, Columbia University Press, Macmillan, London, (1906), pp. 8-10.
21. A. Reiser, Albert Einstein, a Biographical Portrait, Albert & Charles Boni, New York, (1930), p. 104.
22. E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, (1960), p. 341.
23. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerung, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4, (1907), p. 416.
24. E. Cunninghum, The Principle of Relativity, CUP, (1914), p. 191.
25. H. Bergson, Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness, G. Allen, New York, Macmillan, (1921).
26. "Ueber die Entwicklung der Raumvorstellungen", Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, (1866), translated by Phillip E. B. Jourdain in Mach's History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy, Open Court, Chicago, (1911), pp. 88-90.
27. E. A. Poe, Eureka, (1848).
28. E. Mach, Die Principien der physikalischen Optik, (1921), pp. viii-ix; The Principles of Physical Optics, (1926), pp. vii-vii.
E. Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung, 8th ed. F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, (1921), Appendix: "Das Verhältnis der Mach'schen Gedankenwelt zur Relativitätstheorie" by Joseph Petzoldt, pp. 490-517.
E. Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung, 9th ed. F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, (1933), Forward by Dr. Ludwig Mach, pp. XVIII-XX.
See also: John Blackmore, Klaus Hentschel, Ernst Mach als Aussenseiter, (1985), Willhelm Braumüller, 134-138.
29. "Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist", Library of Living Philosophers, P. A. Schilpp, Evanston, Illinois, (1949), p. 18-21.
30. J. D. Everett, Elementary Treatise on Natural Philosophy by A. Privat Deschanel, 6th Ed., D. Appelton and Company, New York, (1883), p. 43.
31. J. D. Everett, On Absolute and Relative Motion, Report of the Sixty-Fifth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Vol. 65, (1895), p. 620.
III. The Two Postulate Myth
"All this was maintained long before the time of Einstein, and one does injustice to truth in ascribing the discovery to him."--Charles Nordmann
There is today a pervasive myth, set forth originally by Mileva Einstein-Marity and Albert Einstein in their 1905 paper on the principle of relativity, which myth asserts that the Einsteins' rendition of the Poincaré-Lorentz Theory of Relativity1 required only two postulates for its formulation. Many assert that the Einsteins employed only these two hypotheses in their theorization, as opposed to Larmor, Lorentz, Langevin and Poincaré, who required the additional hypotheses of length contraction and time dilatation to arrive at the same formulation--long before the Einsteins.
The two postulate myth is substantially and demonstrably false. The false belief that Mileva and Albert's entire theory is built upon but two postulates is used as spurious grounds for denying that Poincaré and Lorentz (and many others) hold priority for the special theory of relativity over the Einsteins.
The so-called "two postulates" in question are stated in the 1905 paper,2 as follows:
"1 (a). Examples of a similar kind, as well as the failed attempts to find a motion of the earth relative to the "light medium", lead to the supposition, that the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties of the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, on the contrary, for all systems of coordinates, for which the equations of mechanics are valid, the same electrodynamic and optical laws are also valid, as has already been proven for the magnitudes of the first order.
1 (b). The laws according to which the states of physical systems change do not depend upon to which of two systems of coordinates, in uniform translatory motion relative to each other, this change of state is referred.
2 (a). [L]ight in empty space always propagates with a determinate velocity c irrespective of the state of motion of the emitting body.
2 (b). Every ray of light moves in the "resting" system of coordinates with the determinate velocity c, irrespective of whether this ray of light is emitted from a resting or moving body. Such that
velocity = (path of light) / (interval of time) ,
where "interval of time" is to be construed in the sense of the definition of Sec. 1."
Even if the two postulate myth were true, it would not be grounds for denying the priority of Poincaré and Lorentz, as both postulates were earlier enunciated by them (the two postulates were, in fact, common knowledge for hundreds, if not thousands, of years), the theory set forth in the Einsteins' 1905 paper is far more primitive than Poincaré's theory set forth during and prior to that same year, and brevity does not equate to priority, in fact, brevity is most often evidence of a lack of priority.
In addition, the 1905 paper is poorly written, incorporating many obvious fallacies, contradictions and mutual exclusions, and does not follow from its false premises to its irrational conclusions. The many non sequiturs and fallacies of Petitio Principii3 contained in the 1905 paper evince that it may have been a mere disguise for the work of others, a puzzled hodgepodge of pirated images.
Albert was forced, in 1907, to acknowledge that the 1905 paper was almost entirely unoriginal, when he wrote an article for the Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik,4 and presented a portion of the history behind the theory. It is significant to note that Albert completely avoided any mention of Poincaré, Larmor or Langevin. Albert later, in 1912, attributed the second postulate, the principle of the constancy of light, to Lorentz and made clear that the absolute, universal constant "celeritas" refers to a single, privileged reference system, that of the medium at rest. In 1912, Albert called the first postulate, the principle of relativity, "classical". According to Albert, there is only one medium in which light propagates at c, in vacuum--resting absolute space, but according to the principle of relativity it is measured to propagate at c in all (legitimized/justified) frames of reference--for the laws of a system of reference at absolute rest must also be the laws of a system of reference in rectilinear, uniform translatory motion relative to absolute space.5
It is significant to note that in 1912 Albert was still using improper nomenclature (Max von Laue's6) and non-relativistic conceptualizations, in that he wrote of Galilean-Newtonian "legitimized" or "justified" frames of reference ("berechtigtes"), instead of Lange's generic "inertial systems".
As late as 1915-16, in his paper on general relativity,7 Albert referred to a "Galilean reference system" as the "privileged", "resting system". Albert was not yet employing the concept of the "inertial system", which Ludwig Lange had set forth in the year 1885.8 Ernst Gehrcke wrote expositions on Lange's concepts in 1912-13. After Gehrcke's exposition,9 v. Laue10 adopted Lange's proper nomenclature of the "inertial system", and it eventually became standard jargon among Einsteinian pseudo-relativists, though they very rarely give Lange the credit he deserves--very rarely.
Though Albert had read Mach, who had addressed Lange's "inertial system" and who had denied the existence of absolute space, Albert clearly was not employing the concept of the "inertial system" right up through to his first paper on the general theory of relativity. The concept of the "inertial system" obviates that of a privileged frame, and Albert acknowledged that the special theory of relativity was grounded, in his mind, upon the notion of a privileged frame (the "resting system" in the 1905 paper) and uniform translations of this absolute space,
"The special theory of relativity is founded upon the following postulate, which is also satisfied by Galilean-Newtonian mechanics: If a system of coordinates K is chosen such that, with respect to it, physical laws are valid in their simplest form, then these same laws are also valid with respect to every other system of coordinates K', which is engaged in a uniform, translatory motion relative to K. We call this postulate the "special principle of relativity". By the word "special" one is to understand that the principle is limited to the case, where K' executes a uniform, translatory motion in comparison with K, but that the equivalence of K' and K not refer to the case of non-uniform motion of K' with respect to K.
Therefore, the special theory of relativity does not deviate from classical mechanics through the postulate of relativity, but rather only through the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuum, from which follows in the familiar fashion, when combined with the special principle of relativity, the relativity of synchronism as well as the Lorentz transformation and the related laws governing the behavior of moving rigid bodies and clocks.
The modification, which the theory of space and time has undergone through the special theory of relativity, is indeed a profound one; however, an important point remains untouched. Even according to the special theory of relativity, the theorems of geometry are of course to be construed directly as the laws governing the possible relative positions of (resting) fixed bodies, more generally the theorems of kinematics, as theorems which describe the behavior of measuring bodies and clocks. Two distinguished material points of a resting (rigid) body hereby always correspond to a span of wholly fixed length, independent of position and time; two distinguished positions of the hands of a clock resting relative to the (privileged) system of reference always correspond to a span of time of exact length, independent of position and time. It is soon shown, that the general theory of relativity cannot hold on to this simple, physical construction of space and time."11
Note that Albert avers that the relativity postulate is a classical one, and that positions in space and time are absolute in the special theory of relativity. Albert continues to refer to this "privileged" system and states that masses in uniform, rectilinear motion move with respect to this privileged system of coordinates in an inertial fashion,
"K is a Galilean system of reference, i.e. one that relative to which (at least in the four-dimensional region under consideration) a mass sufficiently remote from others is moving rectilinearly and uniformly."
"Es sei K ein Galileisches Bezugssystem, das heist ein solches, relativ zu welchem (mindestens in dem betrachteten vier-dimensionalen Gebiete) eine von anderen hinlänglich entfernte Masse sich geradlinig und gleichförmig bewegt."12
This "Galilean system of reference" is "absolute space" and Euclidean uniform translations of absolute space, not a generic "inertial system", in the sense of Ludwig Lange, but a system mapped with reference to, equivalently: Galileo's absolute space; Newton's absolute space; Carl Neumann's reference system congruent to the "Body Alpha"; and Lorentz' aether, for a moving system of coordinates, though not necessarily a Galilean transformation, is yet a circularly defined "rectilinear, uniform translation of space", and Albert's "law of inertia" incorporates the artificial distinction of the "state of rest" from the "state of motion",
"The Galilean System of Coordinates. As is common knowledge, the fundamental law of Galilean-Newtonian mechanics is what is referred to as the law of inertia: A body which is sufficiently remote from others persists in a state of rest or of uniform-rectilinear motion. This principle says something not only about the motion of bodies, but also about the bodies of reference or systems of coordinates, which are permissible in mechanics, and which may be employed in a mechanistic description. The visible fixed stars are undoubtedly bodies which can be useful in meeting the law of inertia with close approximation. Now, if we use a system of coordinates, which is rigidly bound to the Earth, then relative to it, each fixed star describes in the passage of a (astronomical) day a circle of colossal radius, in contradiction to the statement of the law of inertia. Therefore, if one is to adhere to this law, then one may only refer motion to systems of coordinates, relative to which the fixed stars do not move in a circle. We call a system of coordinates, whose state of motion is such that, relative to it, the law of inertia prevails, a 'Galilean system of coordinates'. The laws of Galilean-Newtonian mechanics are only valid for a Galilean system of coordinates."
"Das Galileische Koordinatensystem. Bekanntlich lautet das unter Namen Trägheitsgesetz bekannte Grundgesetz der Galilei-Newtonischen Mechanik: Ein von anderen Körpern hinreichend entfernter Körper verharrt im Zustande der Ruhe oder der gleichförmiger-geradlingen Bewegung. Dieser Satz sagt nicht nur etwas aus über die Bewegung der Körper, sondern auch über die in der Mechanik zulässigen Bezugskörper oder Koordinatensysteme, welche bei der mechanischen Beschreibung verwendet werden dürfen. Körper, auf welche der Trägheitssatz sicherlich mit großer Annäherung Anwendung finden kann, sind die sichtbaren Fixsterne. Benutzen wir nun ein Koordinatensystem, welches mit der Erde starr verbunden ist, so beschreibt relativ zu ihm jeder Fixstern im Laufe eines (astronomischen) Tages einen Kreis von ungeheurem Radius, im Widerspruch mit dem Wortlaut des Trägheitsgesetzes. Hält man also an diesem Gesetze fest, so darf man die Bewegung nur auf Koordinatensysteme beziehen, relativ zu welchen die Fixsterne keine Kreisbewegung ausführen. Ein Koordinatensystem, dessen Bewegungszustand ein solcher ist, daß relativ zu ihm das Trägheitsgesetz gilt, nennen wir ein ,,Galileisches Koordinatensystem." Nur für ein Galileisches Koordinatensystem beanspruchen die Gesetze der Galilei-Newtonischen Mechanik Gültigkeit."13
For Ludwig Lange, these were two redundant terms, "motion" and "rest", for the same state, the absence of force. For Lange it was not just a happy or fascinating coincidence that the laws of kinematics precluded the detection absolute rest, as it was for Albert and Lorentz, rather, for Lange, rest and motion were purely relative conceptions, and the absence of force was just that, and nothing more. For Lange, unlike Newton and unlike Albert's views in the special theory of relativity, inertia was a truly passive principle, and did not relate to rest or motion, per se, but to forcelessness.
We have here a shift in nomenclature. In 1912, Albert employed Max von Laue's term "berechtigtes System", which Laue meant as a label for a generic inertial system, and not absolute space and time. Since this system was an artifice--it excluded "rotations" and "accelerations" in a purely arbitrary, absolutist manner, Laue called it "justified" or "legitimized", but the term can also mean "exclusively privileged", which is the sense in which Albert employed it in 1915-16. Albert also deviates from his 1907 stance that geometry be a function of relative rest in any "legitimized" system, since rigid contraction and relative simultaneity rendered moving form kinematic, to the absolute of geometric form in the state of rest in 1916. The confusion is intrinsic in his belief system, for all rigidly attached, rigid bodies, which begin in absolute rest, when accelerated to achieve a rectilinear, uniform translation of space, maintain their geometric proportions relative to their system, and thus are absolute geometric forms when moving inertially and when resting ineritally, in the Newtonian absolutist sense, which sense Albert adopted. Albert had to clear away these images to make room for the non-Euclidean geometry of the transcendental geometers, which he adopted in his general theory of relativity.
Underlying these images, for those of Minkowski's ilk, is the mystic belief that nothing is moving, and that "inertial motion" is a spiritual awareness of the will of bodies for change, casting delusions of motion, which warp the absolute form of mass, its resting form made kinematic by "observation". Observation must, therefore, be an active principle, our minds creating dimensions, which do not mirror physical reality, but which allow us to exist as the unchanging change of our conscious existence in an unchanging whole. Their pseudo-relativstic absolutism seems like the long way around the fence, to me. . . . It is truly an unintended attack on our human nature, as willful creatures, which lends us to passive beliefs, causing us to view ourselves as passive pocks on an absolutely ancient statue. I would rather see us as seeking to be managers of change, illusory as our hubris may be, or at least delighters in the hope and unexpected joy of change and choice. It is a coin toss, on one side, you can choose to be an Einsteinian pseudo-relativist and view yourself as fixed, infantile and passive, or, on the other, you can choose to be scientific, adult, willful and creative. I do not wish to interject emotion into the debate, but rather to elucidate the political force of the various belief systems.
Of those who pursued Albert's papers, and ignoring the fact that it was Poincaré who introduced the concept of the inertial system to the special theory of relativity, it was Jakob Laub14 who first came closest to comprehending the import of the "inertial system" in 1907, with his proposed nomenclature of "System I" and "System II", as opposed to the Einsteins' 1905 "resting system" and "moving system". Minkowski,15 parroting Poincaré's prior works, later eliminated the notion of a privileged frame from the Einsteins' theory. However, Laub failed to fully incorporate the "inertial system" concept in at least three ways. One, while asserting that absolute space "plays no role" in the Einsteins' theory, Laub still spoke in absolutes, and of rest, and failed to explicitly state that there is no such thing as absolute space. Two, he spoke of absolute empty space as the normal medium of the light wave. Three, had he denied the existence of absolute space, instead of merely asserting that it played no observable role, he would have been compelled to refer the "Systems" to Newton's laws of inertia, which are tacitly understood when one proceeds from absolute space, to a moving system in uniform, rectilinear translation of motion with respect to absolute space, but are by no means understood by simply asserting two arbitrary systems in uniform motion with respect to each other.
Oddly, and quite tellingly, if one asserts, as did the Einsteins, that a resting aether is superfluous to a conceptualization of the electrodynamics of moving bodies, then there is no reason whatsoever to equate the detection of the addition of velocities of c +/- v (light's speed compounded with that of a moving body)--the detection of relative motion with respect to the aether, with the detection of absolute space itself, none! How can the two concepts, that of the light medium and that of absolute space, be correlated, if an absolutely resting aether has expressly been denied?
Poincaré's principle of relativity states,
"The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we have not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried along in such a motion."16
which absurdity stems from Poincaré's spuriously confusing Newton's Fifth Corollary, with the straw man issue of Michelson: That the detection of relative motion with respect to light's medium is the detection of absolute space, as found in Poincaré's words of 1895,
"Experience reveals an abundance of facts, which can be summed up in the following formula: it is impossible to make manifest the absolute motion of matter, or, more correctly, the relative motion of ponderable matter with reference to the aether; the only thing which can be observed is the motion of ponderable matter with reference to ponderable matter."
"L'expérience a révélé une foule de faits qui peuvent se résumer dans la formule suivante: il est impossible de rendre manifeste le mouvement absolu de la matière, ou mieux le mouvement relatif de la matière pondérable par rapport à l'éther; tout ce qu'on peut mettre en évidence, c'est le mouvement de la matière pondérable par rapport à la matière pondérable." 17
Poincaré's (and the Einsteins' parroted) principle of relativity is a fallacy, for the detection of the addition of velocities with respect to light and its medium, or of that of its source, is no more a detection of absolute space, than would be the detection of c +/- v with respect to sound in the air, or a rifle shot fired from a moving airplane. Light's speed would not equate to an absolute velocity, sans an absolutely resting aether, unless one first asserts that light is a wave propagation in the medium of absolute space of constant velocity in all directions, and that light's velocity is independent of the velocity of the source.
However, if one claims that light is a wave propagation in the medium of absolute space, which wave propagates at a constant velocity which is independent of the velocity of the source, then one has merely deceptively renamed the "resting aether" as "absolute space", and one has not rendered the "aether" superfluous, but rather, indispensable, though styled under another title, the misnomer of "empty space".
Of course, Poincaré is reasonable in asserting that our perception of motion as a change in position through time is relational and not absolute. However, I cannot understand why Poincaré associated Michelson's and Lorentz' myths of an absolutely resting aether with Poincaré's own argument that there is no absolute space, even though it was a convenient way to dispel their myths. It was a non sequitur (strangely and tellingly aped by the Einsteins). Perhaps Poincaré was simply fascinated with the mathematical argument and didn't want to let go of it. He was, perhaps, Tom Sawyer'ed into the whole straw man issue of the light medium equating to absolute space.
Since there is no reason whatsoever to equate light propagation with absolute space, one may wonder, is there any reason whatsoever to claim that an absence of the addition of velocities with respect to light renders "space" relative? This is the proper question to ask, and the answer is, given the Lorentz Transformation algebras, NO! Space is not relative in the mythology of the special theory of relativity. It is the means of measurement, moving bodies, and the arbitrary and false conceptualization of simultaneity, which are relative in the mythology of the special theory of relativity, not continuous space, which space is the presumed medium of light propagation, by definition. The special theory of relativity's entirely artificial and self-contradicting definition of events and simultaneity plays a spurious role in covering up the dynamic effects the Einsteins wished to disguise.
There is, perhaps, a good reason why the pseudo-relativists don't ask if an absence of the addition of velocities with respect to light renders space relative, but instead cling to the irrational straw man issue: That the detection of the frame of light propagation equates to the detection of absolute space, and is therefore excluded in principle--even though the pseudo-relativists dispute the existence of a resting aether! The reason for the pseudo-relativists' bizarre assertions may be that the correct question inspires the truly scientific mind to search for more sensible explanations than the special theory of relativity, such as to question the validity and interpretation of the experiments, which are used to promote the mythology, or to look to a mobile aether, or even to Newton's corpuscular theory of light.
Poincaré, Lange and Everett clearly hold priority on the concept of the "inertial system", Lange strictly, having defined it in 1885, and Poincaré by introducing (corrupting) it into the special theory of relativity in 1895. Lange's "inertial system" does not incorporate absolute space, but rather views space as a uniform translation in itself, with "rest" and "rectilinear uniform motion of translation" being two terms for the same, ideal, abstract "phenomenon". Minkowski took credit unto himself for this conceptualization, but by no means deserved it. The battle to instill a belief in the "inertial system" over the Newtonian belief in absolute space was hard fought and bitter. It was unfair of Minkowski to lay claim to the ideas of those who had fought so hard against institutionalized views, but it was typical of the cyclical political process of institutional science--typical of the pseudo-scientific bureaucracy. Innovators are ridiculed until they surrender to obscurity, then their ideas are copied by established figures, who then take credit for that against which the institutions had once dogmatically fought. The process seems inevitable, and quite human. It is found on every playground and the pseudo-scientific bureaucracy is little different from a kindergarten, in this respect.
The great difficulty with the "inertial system" concept is that it is a circular definition, which cannot depend upon the metaphysical substratum of absolute space, for it denies the existence of absolute space. One must empirically test for an inertial system, and it is therefore without generic meaning. One must, as an example, look to Foucault's pendulum in order to infer abstract "rest" from real "motion". Inertial systems simply do not exist in Nature. They are a fallacy, and the special principle of relativity is nothing but a false corollary to the fallacy of the "inertial system". In a true "inertial system", a ball released without force from the hand would not move, and a ball thrown would remain in steady, rectilinear motion forever.
Since this so-called "inertia" is fallaciously taken to be a property of inert matter and inert, empty space, these fundamental precepts obviate any theory of purely relative motion, as directions and coordinate systems remain absolute and abstract--wholly ontological. Though there is no privileged frame, there is yet the absolute direction and absolute time of an inertially moving body, i.e. rectilinear and regular motion, and the absolute law of Nature, which supposedly governs the circular definition of inertia. One has to conceive of what "straight motion" should mean, and can draw any map to justify its abstraction. In so doing, the conceptual manifestation of an inertial system is circular as to its definition. Furthermore, it places "inertia" in the realm of a physical force inherent in "space", which is absurd, for empty space is expressly defined as having no physical properties.
The myth of inertia changed from inertia's being a force of inert matter in Newton, to inertia being a force of inert space in the special theory of relativity. For Newton, this "force of inertia" was absolute, it was God's will, or better, God's permission that bodies in motion remain so, unimpeded, and God's desire that bodies at rest, dead matter, somehow have the "life" to resist force, which is in fact force against force. Newton's theorization of the "force of inertia", vis inertiae, is patently absurd.18 "Force" is contrary to "inertness". How can it be, in Newton's Third Definition, that dead matter, be alive, with a will, vis insita? Newton was at times an irrational, anthropomorphic pantheist, who substituted his numerological belief in God's will, for science.
Bodies in the universe exist as relations to the universe at large, and not as Platonic ideals abstracted in "empty space". The construction of a body is not independent of the forces to which it is subjected. Just as a balloon takes on a different form when filled with air, and when subjected to various temperatures and "external forces", so does every existing thing become its relation to the universal medium, in which it is, and of which it is.
In Newton's myths, matter was defined as "inert" or dead. Space was defined as "empty", without influence. "Inertia" was defined as a "force" of dead matter. It was irrational of Newton to define dead matter as constituting a force, that of "inertia", it was a bald contradiction in terms, "inert" and "force".
Newton further bungled when he asserted that a body at rest continues to rest, and a body in motion continues to move in a rectilinear, uniform, translatory motion, unless acted upon by a "force". No body is at rest, but only appears so to observers subjected to similar forces, who remain at relative rest to each other, in one artificial monad of perception. The status of "rest" is the gross abstraction of a given sum of like forces, a resultant force, not the absence of forces. To bring a body to "rest" from "motion" is to change every part of its essence. A "body" is an incomprehensibly complex set of waves, which, in inertial "motion" or "rest" are so polarized as to propagate with a general affinity for a given direction--circularly defined, of necessity.
Bringing a "moving body" to "rest" is not the action of "forces" acting on dead matter, but is the complete change in the polarity of motion of the waves which constitute the body. Just as sound waves are reflected off of a wall, the act of bringing a moving body to rest is the process of establishing a common polarity to the waves which comprise the body, such that they propagate in a like direction, at a similar rate, with that to which "rest" arbitrarily refers.
Likewise, a body in uniform motion moves because it is subject to unlike "forces" from the observer who considers it to move. A moving body is a collection of waves with a polarity of motion, a direction and velocity of propagation, which differs from that which is arbitrarily taken to be "at rest". A body which is subjected to no "force" will "rest", and therefore, a body in motion, uniform or otherwise, must be under the influence of "force"--deviations from the sums of forces which manifest "rest". Which is to say, a body whose wave structure maintained the polarity of motion of a body at rest, would remain at rest. Therefore, a body in motion is unlike a body at rest and is a wave propagating in an unlike manner, not the "same body" put into inertial motion by force. Newton irrationally defined these sums of "forces", the polarity of waves which compose a given body, what we pretend to be "inertia", as an intrinsic property of dead matter.
Consider that a wave on the surface of lake, which follows the motion of a boat, appears to "rest" relative to the boat, but this wave is continually composed of different portions of water, and therefore cannot "rest" in any absolute sense, as it does not pass through time, other than as "change" given a deceivingly consistent name and mental image, "this wave". Another boat in uniform motion of translation relative to the same wave appears to be in "inertial motion". Now, consider that the initial boat is itself composed of waves, and in the realm of awareness of that which constitutes water wave and boat wave, a like polarity of motion constitutes "rest", not because no forces are involved, but because the motions, which are perpetual, are perceived to be of a like nature--"relatively resting". Ultimately, the material of the "medium" and of the "body" are waves, and no like portion moves. Rather, "everything" in the universe changes--the universe changes.
The question as to what is the velocity of the waves relative to their medium is seemingly meaningless as an absolute, as the medium is irresolvably composed of waves itself, such that form or body is a state of awareness in the consciousness of the perceiver given the realm of sense information he or she perceives, and is not an absolute motion through a quasi-rigid and stationary medium, unless that medium be awareness itself, the awareness of that which is changing.
A flag may ripple in the wind, but we merely perceive the body of the flag as the "medium", and the ripples which flow through it as "waves", but, upon deeper reflection, we come to see that the body of the flag is, nevertheless, itself ripples in some unseen medium, which medium itself is a priori likewise but ripples, ad infinitum, and our need to give solidity to that which exists by being ephemeral is the very foundation upon which our sanity rests, but we are wise enough to go beyond sense experience and language to understand a greater insight. It is our sense of Self which endures, not material or medium.
Since we view our Self as existing throughout the changes It interprets, our lives in motion, we anthropomorphically impose this view on dimension, conceiving that dimension remains immutable and constitutes the ultimate medium of change, but once we realize that we are making a logical choice based upon the conventions of our language, and not the logical choice experience compels us to make, we can progress to greater insights.
Dimension is a human quality related to stimulus. Two stimuli, two points imagined, create or are categorized in the mind as one dimension, a line, and with three, we can form the image of a plane, visually. However, an unlike stimulus is required to conceive of a third dimension, and that stimulus comes from touch, from the sense of resistance. As our minds construct the third dimension of depth from touch, it is natural for us to equate free motion and inert rest with this "space" our mind constructs as our awareness. We move a body through the force of our will, which motion causes us to feel resistance in the third dimension we never see, but conceptualize from our sense of resistance, and the changing appearance of what we, under a delusion, conceive to be the same thing, which we see moving in two dimensions. Our heads are the frame of reference for our eyes and our inner ears. The images extant in our consciousnesses resulting from our sensual experiences, and the innate awareness the structure of our minds creates, are both accelerometers and geometers, such that three dimensions seem permanent to us as the very nature of our awareness. But waves, bodies, are not geometers and do not record acceleration, but are its form made physically manifest. We, therefore, mistakenly associate change and position with the force of our will, and delude ourselves through the artificial consistency of language into believing that since we have named this "will", it is one immutable thing, in spite of the fact that it changes. We also, anthropomorphically, impose the feelings of permanence our language and our self-awareness inspires, and the tri-dimensional nature of our awareness on Nature, herself--even though we are conspicuously aware that everything, including our sense of Self, is ephemeral.
We position our changing sense of Self in time and space, and demand that this position remain, for it exists in our memories--is a categorical position in our minds which our minds can access to reflect upon and create awareness, and in so doing, we pretend that the universe contains this substratum, which our psyches contain--that position is remembered as fixed places in which things exists, and not just of which things exist. But this feeling of an immutable substratum of position is just that, a feeling, like hunger. It is where our memories find a place in the present, completely different universe, but it is nowhere to be found in the Logos, itself. We have never observed Nature to return to her memories. She forgets us from moment to moment, and we are never twice under the same skin, never once the same as we once were.
The special theory of relativity becomes even more absurd than Newton's myths, for it compels the "reciprocity" and "absolute identity" of bodies in inertial, relative motion. The 1905 paper states,
"Let a rigid measuring rod and a number of clocks be given to each system, and allow that the two measuring rods, as well as all the clocks of the two systems, are in all respects alike."
Two things which are in all respects alike are the same one thing, the same relation of waves to the universal medium. The construction of rods and clocks is not independent of the rest of the universe. The concept of reciprocity compels that the "same rod" is placed into uniform motion with respect to the "same rod" at rest. This notion is justified by the abstract, kinematic delusion of the inertial system concept, and by the artificial identity of language, which is, however, contradicted by experience, which experience should cause the language to progress to incorporate our greater insights--a process hindered by the pseudo-scientific bureaucracy's infatuation with Albert Einstein. In fact, the rod in motion is subject to different forces from the rod at rest, or it, too, would be at "rest". Since the moving rod is subjected to different forces from the resting rod, it is in no sense the same rod. Its dimensions, composition, and all of its measurable properties, differ. There is no "same rod" put into motion.
Since a clock is, by definition, a uniform motion, it cannot be at rest, and its motion cannot be the same uniform motion if it is accelerated. There is no "resting clock" and there is no "same clock" put into motion. The Einsteins' blunders are obvious and are fatal to their theory. The Einsteins' fundamental precepts are inane, childish fallacies.
All of the experiments to date taken to support the special theory of relativity are unilateral and not reciprocal, and do not in any sense support the theory. There has been no experiment which demonstrates reciprocal relative simultaneity, any more than the Chinese and Gregorian calendars evince reciprocal relative simultaneity. The experiments to date exhibit dynamic effects, and not kinematic, reciprocal effects. The "same rod" cannot be put in motion. "Resting clocks" do not exist and the "same clock" cannot be put into motion.
Kinematic, reciprocal effects do not, and cannot exist, for bodies--clocks and measuring rods--do not exist as dead matter in void space, but as waves in the universal medium. Things do not move or rest "inertly", but only as they exist as an ephemeral impulse. A theoretical body in "uniform, rectilinear motion of translation" is a wave with a polarity of motion, which propagates so, in a process which is not passive in any sense, but which is directly dynamic as the very existence of the wave, which is to say, the existence of change and difference, the twin factors of polarity of motion.
Since, according to the 1905 paper, light propagates in its normal medium, system K, the resting system, at a constant velocity, in all directions, it propagates along the x axis as:
x = c t ,
but "c" truly only has meaning as celeritas in this privileged system, where it is the natural wave speed in a homogenous and isotropic medium, in vacuo (the second postulate). The 1905 paper claims that the concept of the aether is superfluous to the theory that the paper avers. That this second postulate is valid, without the aether to propagate the wave, is irrational, for the velocity of light in its medium is independent of the source--there is no addition of velocities as would occur in Newton's corpuscular theory of light, and hence the aether is superfluous to the phrasing of the mathematics, as is everything real, but not the entire conceptualization of the physical principle, which broader conceptualization is required in order for the mathematics to have any physical meaning whatsoever. One cannot speak of "propagation" without tacitly referring to a medium, and the 1905 paper speaks of "propagation". As Arthur Schuster stated,
"Einstein, in a paper of great interest and power, has developed this idea, calling his imagined law "The principle of relativity," because it stipulates--a priori--that only the relative motion between material bodies can be detected. It is impossible for me to discuss in detail the reasoning by which this principle is justified, and an account without explanations of its consequences would lay me open to the charge that I was playing with your credulity. Suffice, therefore, it to say that strict adherers to the principle cannot admit the existence of an aether, and yet may speak of the transmission of light through space with a definite velocity. They must further accept, as a consequence of their dogma, that identical clocks placed on two bodies moving with different velocities have different rates of going and that, even on the same body, identical clocks indicate different times, when the line joining their positions lies in the direction of motion. The motion must be determined relative to another body, which is supposed to be at rest, and a clock placed on that body must serve as the ultimate standard of time. The theory appears to have an extraordinary power of fascinating mathematicians, and it will certainly take its place in any critical examination of our scientific beliefs; but we must not let the simplicity of the assumption underlying the principle hide the very slender experimental basis on which it rests at present, and more especially not lose sight of the fact, that it goes much beyond what is proved by Michelson's experiment. In that experiment, the source of light and the mirrors which reflected the light were all connected together by rigid bodies, and their distances depended therefore on the intensity of molecular forces. Einstein's generalisation assumes that the result of the experiment would still be the same, if performed in a free space with the source of light and mirrors disconnected from each other but endowed with a common velocity. This is a considerable and, perhaps, not quite justifiable generalisation. I am well aware that Bucherer's experiments with kathode rays are taken to confirm the validity of Einstein's principle, but if we say that they are not inconsistent with it, we should probably go as far as is justifiable."19
The first postulate supposedly tells us that the same laws of optics also apply to a system in uniform motion, such that light also propagates along the x' axis at c', in parallel uniform translation of motion relative to resting system K, in the moving system k, as measured by apparatus at rest relative to k, (not as related to space or time) in other words, by rigidly fixed material points on x', such that,
x' = c' t' ,
which is to say,
x' = x',
x' - c' t' = 0.
We know that,
x = x,
and, further, that,
x - x = 0,
x' - x' = 0,
but this does not imply that,
c' = c,
x - c t = x' - c' t',
which is to say, that,
0 = 0,
5 - 5 = 0,
10 - 10 = 0,
5 - 5 = 10 - 10 = 0,
5 =/ 10.
Therefore, definitionally assuming that,
c' = c,
together with the assumption that,
x' = x - vt,
creates the "relative synchronization" of "clocks", and is a fallacy of false comparison.
Using the standard simplification of two dimensions, and two coordinate systems, x and t, as well as, x' and t' , we are supposedly able to assume the irrational, anti-geometric absurdity, that,
x - c t = x' - c t',
but one could as easily assert that, if,
5 apples - 5 apples = 0,
10 oranges - 10 oranges = 0,
10 oranges = 5 apples,
10 = 5,
which is a fallacy of false comparison of the same nature as the false comparison that,
c' = c,
because v, c and c' each contain time and distance components.
Since the Einsteins require that the motion of a material point in K be a function of time, the following Galilean transformation20 attains,
x' = x - v t. Since the Einsteins require that time equate to "synchronized clocks", which are synched on the presumption that,
c' = c,
c' = c +/- v,
we supposedly obtain relative synchronization, or,
x' = x - v t,t' = t - ( v x ) / c 2,
which transformation, though not anything sensible, was common knowledge from Lorentz' famous book of 1895, Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern, E. J. Brill, Leiden, which Albert admitted to having read prior to the publication and development of the 1905 paper, and which first order transformation Lorentz had accomplished by 1892. This is the a posteriori, synthetic, first-order transformation, which proceeds from the assumption that c' = c.
If Mileva and Albert were truly working independently of Larmor, Lorentz and Poincaré, and if they sincerely proceeded from the two postulates, without any ad hoc hypotheses, then these are the precise equations they should have attained, and the kinematics section of their paper would have been just that simple. There would have been no surprise scale factor of [beta] factored into the first order transformation.
The surprise scale factor was known to the Einsteins before they developed their 1905 paper, and they employed the ad hoc hypotheses of length contraction and time dilatation, just as Lorentz had before them, despite the two postulate myth. Since measurements in the 1905 paper are the identity between frames of the variables of the material form of moving bodies and pseudo-uniform motions--pretend pseudo-clocks, and not space or time, per se, but distance and duration defined by apparatus, just as in Lorentz; and, further, since a privileged frame is assumed, the "resting system", just as in Hertz, Larmor and Lorentz, the scale factor is length contraction and time dilatation, just as in Lorentz' theory, and the clock synchronization procedure is a smoke screen, a "thought experiment", which cannot be performed, and which mandates an irrational, self-contradictory, and entirely arbitrary definition of "simultaneity", which confuses statics with dynamics.21
Had Albert been working independently, he had the perfect opportunity to make a claim of independence from Poincaré and Lorentz in 1907 and again in 1912, when he wrote extensively on the development of the special theory of relativity, but he made no such claim of independence. On the contrary, instead of asserting independence, Albert professed that his work was the mere combination of H. A. Lorentz' theory of 1904 with the mutually exclusive "classical" principle of relativity, modified to include the aethereal definition that light propagates in its medium at celeritas, such that Newton's Fifth Corollary to the laws of motion, the principle of relativity, embraces celeritas--a ludicrous and anti-relativistic proposition, raised as a straw man and carried over from a discredited aethereal theory.
In 1907, Albert makes two distinctions between his work and Lorentz' theory. Albert calls Lorentz' "Ortzeit", or "time of position" simply "Zeit" or "time". But this artificial distinction is pure semantics and metaphysics, with no scientific distinction to be had between the two terms. Time in both theories is "position time", as forced pseudo-uniform motion, and nothing more. In both theories, time is an artifice not measured, but abstracted from an irrational assumption, the invariant speed of a two-way constantly uniform motion between relatively moving frames. Secondly, Albert discounts the aether, and "only" the aether, but not absolute space itself. Here again, this is a matter of metaphysics and semantics, really just pure semantics, as Lorentz pointed out in 1914,
"The latter is, by the way, up to a certain degree a quarrel over words: it makes no great difference, whether one speaks of the vacuum or of the aether."
"Letzteres ist übrigens bis zu einem gewissen Grade ein Streit über Worte: es macht keinen großen Untershied, ob man vom Vakuum oder vom Äther spricht."22
Lorentz, who knew Albert's theory well, would not have alleged that it made no difference to speak of vacuum as opposed to aether, if Albert had discounted absolute space. Both Sommerfeld and Pauli also recognized that the "resting system" was simply another appellation for Lorentz' aether, with absolute celeritas being an aether concept. Pauli stated, regarding celeritas in absolute space,
"There is no question of a universal constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, if only because it has the constant value c only in Galilean systems of reference. On the other hand its independence of the state of motion of the light source obtains equally in the general theory of relativity. It proves to be the true essence of the old aether point of view."23
And Sommerfeld held it up as,
"The only valid remnant of the ether concept"24
It is a matter of record that Poincaré denied the aether, denied absolute simultaneity, proposed the light synchronization procedure as a new convention of time measurement and integrated the principle of relativity into Lorentz' work long before 1905. While it is clear that Albert benefitted from reading Poincaré's Rendicotti paper submitted July 1905, as well as Poincaré's numerous other works, Albert gave no credit to Poincaré in what Albert meant to be an exposition on the development of the theory in 1907. Albert returned to the aether in 1920, avowing a firm belief in it,
"But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.
It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.
Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events.
What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations,; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same. The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation.
As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density.
If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or--as they might also be called--space and matter.
Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H. Weyl,; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."25
Albert later changed his mind again and asked that the "aether" never be mentioned again.
When Minkowski declared in 1908 that,
"Neither Einstein nor Lorentz made any attack on the concept of space".26
Minkowski was entirely correct, and he meant that Mileva and Albert's "resting system", which is found in their 1905 paper, signifies the absolute space of Newton.
But when Minkowski averred that Albert was the first to make an attack on the concept of time, he was grossly mistaken, and he knew that he was not telling the truth. Voigt, Poincaré, Larmor and Lorentz were years ahead of Albert, and it was Poincaré, not Minkowski, who first created a four-dimensional analysis of the Lorentz group, and Minkowski knew it. Minkowski simply threw Albert a bone, the semantical bone of contention Albert had already wrenched from Poincaré, in Albert's 1907 paper, calling Lorentz' "time of position", "time". The bone was nothing but straw, for the difference existed only in words, and Poincaré and countless others had already long since disputed Newton's notion of absolute time.
Albert's and Minkowski's (even posthumously) predilections for shortchanging Poincaré's contributions to the special theory of relativity were immortalized in 1913, when, shortly after Poincaré's untimely and tragic death, Lorentz joined with Albert to produce a collection of works by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, Das Relativitätsprinzip, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig & Berlin, (1913), a collection of papers on relativity theory, the very title of which deserves mention of Poincaré, but not a single article from Poincaré, let alone Larmor, FitzGerald, Voigt, Mach or Lange, is included. On the contrary, Sommerfeld, who annotated the book, addresses only a few areas of Poincaré's vast contribution, in his notations, and takes the opportunity to belittle Poincaré's contribution. They were exceedingly unfair to the deceased Poincaré. This thin book, produced one year before World War I broke out, speaks volumes as to the objectives of Albert in assuming credit for that which was not his. This strongly evinces that Lorentz' and Albert's accounts of the development of relativity theory are not to be trusted.
Should we believe that the Einsteins' 1905 paper was an independent inspiration? What is the goal of the paper? Why was it written? It is a simple, obvious and fair question, but one which is rarely asked. Let's begin an analysis with the title of the work,
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper),
presumably after the many works of Lorentz, for example,
"An Attempt at a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies" (Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern)
"Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with any Velocity Smaller than that of Light" (Elektromagnetische Erscheinungen in einem System, das sich mit beliebiger, die des Lichtes nicht erreichender Geschwindigkeit bewegt),
or, perhaps, Cohn's
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Systems" (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Systeme)
"On the Equations of the Electromagnetic Field for Moving Bodies" (Ueber die Gleichungen des elektromagnetischen Feldes für bewegte Körper)
"On the Equations of Electrodynamics for Moving Bodies" (Über die Gleichungen der Elektrodynamik für bewegte Körper),
or one of the many other works, which followed after Hertz' papers on the electrodynamic equations for absolute rest and absolute motion,
"On the Fundamental Equations of Electrodynamics for Resting Bodies" (Ueber die Grundgleichungen der Elektrodynamik für ruhende Körper)
"On the Fundamental Equations of Electrodynamics for Moving Bodies" (Ueber die Grundgleichungen der Elektrodynamik für bewegte Körper).
We know from the title that the Einsteins' 1905 paper is an exposition on the equations and concepts of electrodynamics for moving bodies, a popular subject, with a well-known and conventional nomenclature. We further know that the terms "moving bodies" and "resting bodies" were conventional, and referred to absolute rest and absolute motion, ca. 1905.
The introduction of the 1905 paper further elucidates the authors' purpose. They sought to render Maxwell's equations for moving bodies symmetrical. Maxwell's electrodynamics was understood at the time, by some, to lead to asymmetries, when applied to moving bodies. However, and the paper makes no mention of this fact, Maxwell, Heaviside, Hertz, Volterra, Cohn and others, had rendered Maxwell's electrodynamics fully symmetrical, before 1905. A straw man is being raised in the introduction of the 1905 paper, and his name is Lorentz. He had already burned at the stake of Cohn and Poincaré. The Einsteins saw fit to stomp Lorentz' ashes, while pretending that they were doing a new dance.
The Einsteins are reacting in their 1905 paper to Lorentz' 1904 paper, and are distinguishing their view by positivistically declaring the aether "superfluous", as had many others before them, and by finding symmetry in Maxwell's equations, as Poincaré, Cohn, Hertz, Heaviside, and many others already had before the Einsteins.
These marks of distinction are repeated in Albert's 1907 paper on the principle of relativity, and though Lorentz' 1904 paper is cited in Albert's 1907 paper, rather than claim independence from it, Albert reveals that the 1905 theory is the mere combination of Lorentz' 1904 work27 with the principle of relativity, a feat previously accomplished publicly by Poincaré. Consider the following quotes from the Einsteins' work:
"If, then--as follows from the theorem of the addition of velocities (Sec. 5)--the vector ( u[xi], u[eta], u[zeta]) is nothing other than the velocity of the electric masses as measured in the system k, then it is thereby shown, taking as a basis our kinematical principles, that the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz' theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies corresponds to the principle of relativity.
It may be briefly noted, that the following important proposition can easily be inferred from the resultant equations: If an electrically charged body moves arbitrarily through space and by moving does not change its charge, as observed from a system of coordinates moving with the body, then its charge also--as observed from the 'resting' system K--remains constant."
and, from 1907,
"In the following an effort is now made to fully comprehend the works, which, heretofore, are the emergence of the combination of H. A. Lorentz' theory and the principle of relativity. The kinematic foundations as well as the application of the fundamental equations of the Maxwell-Lorentz theory are treated in the first two parts of the work; I, thereby, heal, by fusing the wound, the works of H. A. Lorentz (Versl. Kon. Akad. V. Wet., Amsterdam 1904) and A. Einstein (Ann. D. Phys. 16 [sic], 1905)."28
As in the title of the work, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", a distinction is drawn between moving and resting bodies throughout the 1905 paper, with "space", itself, always being associated directly with the "resting system", and with bodies moving relative to space--with space being absolute. Had "moving" not related to the assumption of a medium for light propagation, "empty space", it would have been an utterly absurd distinction. As things stood, "space" was just semantics to disguise the aether by giving it a positivistic name, the quintessentially meaningless term "empty space".
In the context of Maxwell, the meaning of the distinction between rest and motion was conventional and crystal clear, and the paper expressly adopts the resting system and its equations as fundamental "laws" of the medium of the same rank as Newton's laws of motion, and thus applicable to Newton's Fifth Corollary, the principle of relativity of uniform motion and absolute rest.
The terminology of "resting system" and "moving systems" was the standard language of the day, understood by all physicists of the time, even those who disagreed with it, to mean systems of coordinates, rigid bodies, in absolute rest and absolute motion, as per Maxwell, Hertz and Lorentz, the three main players in the Einsteins' 1905 paper. Larmor used the same language, as well. If Mileva and Albert had wanted to attack the concept of absolute space, they would have done so, for they attacked the notion of absolute simultaneity, parroting Poincaré, without mentioning his name. Instead, the Einsteins adopted absolute space as a point of departure, and set out to demonstrate that it held no special properties--just as Hertz, and those who followed after him, had already done.
We soon discover in the introduction of the 1905 paper a clear statement of the objective of the entire paper,
"These two assumptions are sufficient in order to arrive at a simple and consistent electrodynamics of moving bodies, taking as a basis Maxwell's theory for resting bodies."
Maxwell's theory for resting bodies is Maxwell's theory of the medium, the aether at absolute rest. It was patently absurd of the Einsteins to write with the same pen that the aether was superfluous, while assuming it as a basis for their theory.
One of the "two assumptions", the first "postulate", is that the electrodynamics of moving bodies be consistent. Of course, the reasoning presented is circular, first assuming via the first postulate that electrodynamics is consistent, then arguing that this mandated consistency creates a consistency. It is the first of many circular arguments found in the 1905 paper.
In the introduction, we are being primed to venture forth from Maxwell's theory of equations for absolutely resting bodies in the aether, so that we can return to them, Petitio Principii, while being asked to pretend that the aether is superfluous, so that we aren't too shocked when simultaneity is claimed to be relative, again, Petitio Principii, via an impossible light synchronization assumption.
We continue from the trite introduction with the goal of reconciling the equations of moving bodies with the Maxwellian electrodynamics of resting bodies--absolutely resting bodies in the aether, taking this absolutely resting system as a starting point. We are asked to accept Maxwell's theory for resting bodies as a given, and, hence, we have a point of departure to define time and distance in absolute space--the geometry of "rest", for light speed is a universal constant in absolute space in Maxwell's theory, our second postulate, and an isotropic velocity represents an isotropic, rectilinear, uniform motion, and hence, a measure of time and distance, and here is another instance of the Einsteins' circular reasoning--equivalent to Galileo's--as will be shown.
The difficulty we supposedly face is to reconcile this given of light's propagating at a constant velocity in its natural medium, absolute space, with the proposal that these same "laws" of the electrodynamics of resting bodies, which aren't "laws", but the proposed relational effects of the assumed dynamic properties of the medium, will apply with equal validity to moving bodies--which subtly and deceptively becomes the kinematics of moving form and relative simultaneity--the first postulate overreached in a futile attempt to hide the ad hoc hypotheses of length contraction and time dilatation.
Note well that the paper accepts and requires the validity of the concepts of absolute rest and absolute velocity, and cannot proceed in the manner it does without them, for without them there would be no axiomatic, isotropic, rectilinear, uniform motion, but the paper calls into question absolute simultaneity, based on them, supposedly to derive the ad hoc hypotheses of length contraction and time dilatation, which is, of course, never accomplished, as said hypotheses don't follow from the tacit premise of
c' = c.
Only the first order transformations can be wrenched from the tacit premise, using the Einsteins'most inane pseudo-logic, not time dilatation or length contraction, as was shown.
It was Poincaré who criticized Lorentz' theory as ad hoc and Lorentz himself makes note of this fact in his 1904 paper. Albert, in his 1907 paper, notes the criticism that Lorentz' work was "ad hoc", but makes no mention of the fact that it was Poincaré who so stigmatized it, and Lorentz made that clear in his 1904 paper, with an assessment and a reference. Albert, quite tellingly, avoided any mention of Poincaré in the context of the special theory of relativity. As Albert avowed,
"the secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
The Einsteins were under the spell of the new school of positivism, which was to become "Logical Positivism", and which Arthur Schuster would later catagorize as a cowardly cop out to ignorance, and further which "Logical Positivism" Karl Popper would systematically discredit. The Einsteins may have believed that they could disguise their piracy of Poincaré's interpretation of Lorentz' theory, by stating it in Poincaré's positivistic form, without mentioning Poincaré. They also would have found in Mach references to,
"Budde's conception of space as a sort of medium."29
Schuster wrote against the emerging positivism, and the consequences of its cowardice,
"I have during these lectures contrasted on several occasions the former tendency to base our technical explanations of natural phenomena on definite models which we can visualise and even constuct, with the modern spirit which is satisfied with a mathematical formula, and symbols which frequently have no strictly definable meaning. I ought to explain the distinction between the two points of view which represent two attitudes of mind, and I can do so most shortly by referring to the history of the electro-dynamic theory of light, the main landmarks of which I have already pointed out in the second lecture. The undulatory theory--as it left the hands of Thomas Young, Fresnel and Stokes--was based on the idea that the aether possessed the properties of an elastic solid. Maxwell's medium being quite different in its behaviour, its author at first considered it to be necessary to justify the possibility of its existence, by showing how, by means of fly wheels and a peculiar cellular construction, we might produce a composite body having the required properties. Although later Maxwell laid no further stress on the ultimate construction of the medium, his ideas remained definite and to him the displacements which constituted the motion of light possessed a concrete reality. In estimating the importance of the support which Maxwell's views have received from experiment, we must distinguish between the fundamental assumptions on which Maxwell based his investigations and the mathematical formulae which were the outcome of these investigations. It is clearly the mathematical formulae only which are confirmed and the same formulae might have been derived from quite different premises. It has always been necessary, as a second step of great discovery, to clear away the immaterial portions which are almost invariable accessories of the first pioneer work, and Heinrich Hertz, who besides being an experimental investigator was a philosopher of great perspicacity, performed this part of the work thoroughly. The mathematical formula instead of being the result embodying the concrete ideas, now became the only thing which really mattered. To use an acute and celebrated expression of Gustav Kirchhoff, it is the object of science to describe natural phenomena, not to explain them. When we have expressed by an equation the correct relationship between different natural phenomena we have gone as far as we safely can, and if we go beyond we are entering on purely speculative ground. I have nothing to say against this as a philosophic doctrine, and I shall adopt it myself when lying on my death-bed, if I have then sufficient strength to philosophise on the limitations of our intellect. But while I accept the point of view as a correct death-bed doctrine, I believe it to be fatal to a healthy development of science. Granting the impossibility of penetrating beyond the most superficial layers of observed phenomena, I would put the distinction between the two attitudes of mind in this way: One glorifies our ignorance, while the other accepts it as a regrettable necessity. The practical impediment to the progress of physics, of what may reluctantly be admitted as correct metaphysics, is both real and substantial and might be illustrated almost from any recent volume of scientific periodicals. Everyone who has ever tried to add his mite to advancing knowledge must know that vagueness of ideas is his greatest stumbling-block. But this vagueness which used to be recognised as our great enemy is now being enshrined as an idol to be worshipped. We may never know what constitutes atoms or what is the real structure of the aether, why trouble therefore, it is said, to find out more about them. Is it not safer, on the contrary, to confine ourselves to a general talk on entropy, luminiferous vectors and undefined symbols expressing vaguely certain physical relationships? What really lies at the bottom of the great fascination which these new doctrines exert on the present generation is sheer cowardice: the fear of having its errors brought home to it. As one who believes that metaphysics is a study apart from physics, not to be mixed up with it, and who considers that the main object of the physicist is to add to our knowledge, without troubling himself much as to how that knowledge may ultimately be interpreted, I must warn you against the temptation of sheltering yourself behind an illusive rampart of safety. We all prefer being right to being wrong, but it is better to be wrong than to be neither right nor wrong."30
What even Schuster could not have anticipated, was the sheer political force and hero worship which would accompany the grand cowardice and shameless plagiarism of positivism, and the great threat the positivistic pseudo-scientist would pose to our world, and that of our progeny.
Herbert Dingle warned of the dangers of the anti-rational psychosis induced by Logical Positivism in its pseudo-relativistic adherents, with its celebration of the denial of physical reality, its solipsisms, hypocrisy, numerology, and semantics, with the positivists' accepting fallacy as fact. Dingle asked us all to consider that we place our lives in the hands of a class of pseudo-scientists, who see as their goal the denial of the physical world, as for them it is an illusion, and instead pursue the shameless and unchecked promotion of their myths. Herbert Dingle, whose words were allegedly often effectively suppressed, stated, inter alia,
"The facts must be faced. To a degree never previously attained, the material future of the world is in the hands of a small body of men, on whose not merely superficially apparent but absolute, intuitive (in Bergson's sense of the word) integrity the fate of all depends, and that quality is lacking. Where there was once intellectual honesty they have now merely the idea that they possess it, the most insidious and the most dangerous of all usurpers; the substitution is shown by the fruits, which are displayed in unmistakable clarity in the facts described here. After years of effort I am forced to conclude that attempts with the scientific world to awaken it from its dogmatic slumber are in vain. I can only hope that some reader of these pages, whose sense of reality exceeds that of the mathematicians and physicists and who can command sufficient influence, might be able from the outside to enforce attention to the danger before it is too late."31
Despite its irrational loathing of the very metaphysics which made its formation possible, this positivistic cult was the new rage in Physics at the beginning of the 20th Century. Joseph Larmor wrote in 1900,
"At the same time all that is known (or perhaps need be known) of the aether itself may be formulated as a scheme of differential equations defining the properties of a continuum in space, which it would be gratuitous to further explain by any complication of structure; though we can with great advantage employ our stock of ordinary dynamical concepts in describing the succession of different states thereby defined."32
Albert adopted this numerological stance, which numerological stance Wilhelm Reich expressed in the following terms,
"the 'elimination of the ether' and its substitution by equations".33
Paul Drude stated,
"The velocity of light in space [***] independent of what is understood by a light vector. [***] The conception of an ether absolutely at rest is the most simple and the most natural,--at least if the ether is conceived to be not a substance but merely space endowed with certain physical properties."34
"Like Maxwell and Hertz we address a chemically and physically homogenous medium as an entity, which is also completely characterized at all points electromagnetically by the same value of some constants. This type of medium fills each element of our space; it is perhaps a certain ponderable substance, or it may also be the vacuum. In light of this, we will avoid continuing to speak of an 'aether'."
"Wie Maxwell und Hertz behandeln wir ein chemisch und physikalisch homogenes Medium als ein Gebilde, welches auch elektromagnetisch in allen Punkten durch die gleichen Werte einiger Constanten vollständig charakterisiert ist. Ein solches Medium erfüllt jedes Element unseres Raumes; es kann eine bestimmte ponderable Substanz oder auch das Vacuum sein. Daneben noch von einem ,,Aether" zu sprechen, werden wir vermeiden."35
William Kingdon Clifford speculated that light may be naught but flickering space,
"In order to explain the phenomena of light, it is not necessary to assume anything more than a periodical oscillation between two states at any given point of space."36
The positivistic statement that the aether is superfluous to science was not original to the Einsteins, has its origins in the debate of the 1600's over whether Physics, which is physical, ought to also be mathematical, which mathematics is not physical; as well as Bacon's religious mumbo-jumbo, and is a cowardly cop out to our ignorance of that which has dimension as "empty space", but from which "empty space" we feel no resistance. Logical Positivism is quickly reduced to the absurdity that there is no such thing as knowledge--no such thing as science.
The logical positivists attacked religion and Metaphysics, then adopted their most abstract product, pure mathematics, absurdly denying that mathematics is religious or metaphysical, when mathematics is both numerology and ontology in their most primitive form, symbolism. The logical positivists hover about an equation with the enthusiasm and sense of wonder with which a lunatic gazes into a crystal ball, fascinated that it might predict the future. The logical positivist is a hypocrite, who pretends that predicting the future with mathematics is other than religiously gazing into a crystal ball, for the logical positivist denies that the mathematics mirrors physical reality, and yet asserts that mathematics as the only means of understanding existence.
In terms of theories of optics, logical positivism is the blind and frantic submission to our ignorance of what fills "empty space", though we know that this medium is filled with wave disturbances. The denial of the aether was nothing but a gimmick to steal credit for the work of aether theorists, by changing their terms, and nothing more. Positivism, truly dating from Bacon, strangely, became piracy, piracy through semantics. Newton did it, and the Einsteins aped Newton, dubbing the aether "superfluous", while hoarding its long extant formulas.
Many were appalled by the Newtonian effort to reduce human understanding to the non-physical, unsophisticated metaphysics of pure mathematics, noting that the mathematics did not fall from the heavens, like an apple from a tree, but resulted from human insight and the sophisticated metaphysics overseeing the mixed sciences from at least the time of the Greeks onward to their day, and that others had presented the mathematics, for which Newton took credit, first.
Many knew that it was numerology to attempt to understand the workings of gravity as pure mathematics, which math is not physical, but is entirely abstract, physically contradicted, ontological metaphysics. Many today share that same insight. There is an interpretive element between measurement and mathematics, which the positivists would have us pretend does not exist, for they rarely come up with anything new, and often only assume credit for that which they take from those who aren't afraid to think, by denying the truth in what they steal, while hiding behind it, mathematically. The positivists are seemingly oblivious to the facts, that measurement is subjective, and, that mathematics is entirely metaphysical. They are seemingly oblivious to their hypocrisy, at least they pretend to be in their plagiaristic acts.
Karl Pearson, after the commonly perceived image of Mach, advocated a positivistic, anti-scientific approach, which glorifies ignorance and promotes adherence to dogmatic definitions, in The Grammar of Science, 2nd Ed., Adam and Charles Blick, London, (1900). This remarkable book, at once filled with so many brilliant insights, yet fraught with so many disastrous contradictions and hypocrisies, could well have been the Einsteins' bible. It provided them with a window of opportunity to assume credit for Lorentz' work, by making it positivistic--surreally reducing a mechanical theory to the most abstract of ontological metaphysical nonsense--pure, though twisted, mathematics, and in an utterly irrational, pseudo-kinematic form. Rational metaphysics are essential to Physics. Positivism is the utter destruction of reason. Positivism is a political weapon institutionally used to control language, and thus thought, and to misrepresent priorities, it is "newspeak", where "war" is "peace", and the "aether" is "empty space".
Even if the Einsteins had cut to the quick of the process of "deriving" the Lorentz Transformation (Petitio Pricipii), an inconsequential act, for the transformation group already existed in its essence in 1887, long before 1905, they would have stropped Ockham's razor on Poincaré's and Lorentz' backs, and without giving either man due credit for his work.
While the papers of Poincaré and Lorentz are clear, easy to read, and readily understood, the Einsteins' paper is substantially more obscure, probably because the Einsteins lacked the insight of the originators, and further because, having been schooled as to the superficial, linguistic nature of the concepts (they apparently copied numerous passages virtually word-for-word), they believed the words held obvious meaning and failed to understand that these somewhat difficult and less than obvious notions have an internally consistent theoretical basis, which the Einsteins were violating in their positivistic, Petitio Principii collage of pirated images. The paper becomes nonsensical in its modern interpretation, such that, even for its adherents, it is better understood in its proper historical context of absolute rest and absolute motion.
Albert suppressed a 1912 manuscript he wrote on special relativity, which does not hide Lorentz' contribution, nor the assumption of a privileged frame. This work is a far more lucid exposition than is the Einsteins' 1905 paper, which is an apparent disguise for Lorentz' work. Of course, 7 years of contemplation, numerous outside works and discussions should have rendered any theory more lucid, but there is nothing new in the 1912 paper, as far as the fundamental understanding of the Lorentz group, which could not have been stated in 1905.
Poincaré, for example, demonstrated a far greater understanding of the issues involved, and sought the formulation of a truly general relativity theory in 1905.37 Poincaré, too, was less than revolutionary, and was not always forthcoming with the names of those from whom he drew inspiration, unless he sought to criticize them.
Poincaré was aware of the difficulties in discriminating so-called "inertial systems" in Nature, and Poincaré was further aware that accelerations defeat the principle of relativity. The term "inertial system" was first used in Ludwig Lange's, "Über die wissenschaftliche Fassung des Galilei'schen Beharrungsgesetzes", Philosophische Studien, 2, (1885), p. 273. Comparing the clarity and insight of Lange's original thought with the Einsteins' diluted, second, third or fourth-hand synopsis of these ideas, demonstrates that the Einsteins' work was hardly original, and was rather poorly presented. The 1905 paper becomes nonsensical when it is forced into a form it did not originally take--that of the modern special theory of relativity, based on Lange's "Inertialsystem", or space as a uniform translation without a privileged frame, with "space-time" as an absolute, quadri-dimensional manifold.
The facts contradict those who claim priority for the Einsteins' 1905 paper, based on the two postulate myth. The assertion is often made that length contraction and time dilatation were not hypothesized in the 1905 paper, but were derived and do not represent physical effects, but are merely matters of perspective--though no explanation is forthcoming as to how this perspective of measurement is achieved, other than Petitio Principii, for the prescribed measurement procedure is never performed by human beings--cannot be performed in the physical--and, therefore, cannot be the cause or the correlation of anything, and is not a "measurement procedure", but a Petitio Principii pseudo-argument--fallacy.
No explanation is forthcoming as to what this so-called "perspective" of non-simultaneous measurement is, which "perspective" was formerly called "physical reality". Defining length contraction and time dilatation as the consequence of relative simultaneity, in a theory in which relative simultaneity is the consequence of pseudo-measurements in an impossible light synchronization process, with false premises, which tacitly presumes length contraction and time dilatation as a proportionality factor, and through the delusion of pretending that an anisotropic clock, light, is an isotropic clock, celeritas, is again the fallacy of Petitio Principii, piled on top of the Einsteins' numerous other irrational sins, in order to hide them.
Attributing length contraction and time dilatation to "relative simultaneity" is simply giving a new set of words for a dynamic process we can theoretically observe, while pretending that nothing is happening in an absolute, quadri-dimensional world which we cannot perceive, but which only exists in a mathematical Gestalt linkage conjured up from irrational pretenses--false symbols and broken rules. Attacking the pseudo-relativists' delusions of "relative simultaneity" is like arguing against a string of three lies, by arguing against the third lie, for you have then admitted the first two, by not addressing them.
The "perspective" excuse for the piracy of Lorentz' theory came much after 1905, and resulted from Albert's critics, as did much of the later theory, though Albert somehow is awarded credit for these ideas, as well, which ideas he initially had vehemently opposed.
This "derivation" of the Lorentz Transformation is immediately suspect, for Voigt had arrived at the so-called "Lorentz Transformation" in 1887,38 and Larmor re-set the relativistic scale in the 1890's. There is no rational basis for the Einsteins' having adopted FitzGerald's and Larmor's scale factor of [beta], other than if the Einsteins were simply copying it, either directly, or through Lorentz and Poincaré.
The Einsteins' 1905 paper, despite its modern misinterpretation, transforms tri-dimensional rigid bodies and uni-dimensional resting clocks--uniform motions--from one reference frame at absolute rest into another in uniform motion by artificially and irrationally setting a pretend, universally homogenous and isotropic c' as equal to the measurement of a pretend, universally homogenous and isotropic c, as a congruent, incongruent scale system, thereby begging the question of the compatibility of the two incompatible postulates, and setting the change in scale of the coordinates for bodies in motion through a proportionality factor, which actions were of themselves intrinsically the presumption of kinematic length contraction, time dilatation, and relative simultaneity, not the "derivation" of them. One does not legitimately "derive" a natural change in the standard Galilean-Euclidean Transformation for uniform translations of absolute space by compelling it with the addition of artificial constants to the variables, nor is one justified in begging the question, by artificially setting c' = c quasi-geometrically and thereby stating the conclusion that light speed is invariant, as measured; or, as the 1905 paper states the conclusionary process:
"Now, we have to prove that every ray of light propagates with the velocity c as measured in the moving system, in case this is, as we have taken for granted, the case in the resting system, because we still have not offered up the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is reconcilable with the principle of relativity."
identically as the previously stated premise that light speed is invariant, as measured in the moving system; or, as the paper states prior to the above conclusion:
"It is easy, with the help of this result, to ascertain the magnitudes [xi], [eta], [zeta], because one expresses by means of these equations, that light (as the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, in conjunction with the principle of relativity, requires) also propagates with the velocity c as measured in the moving system."
The Einsteins' irrational blunder of stating the conclusion as the premise, their pernicious habit of Petitio Principii, was perhaps not made through naïve carelessness, but through an effort to disguise the fact that they were aping Poincaré's interpretation of Lorentz' theory. The two postulates do not intrinsically agree, prior to Lorentz geometry, no matter how many sets of coordinates of uniform translation one artificially imposes on continuous space.
The "two postulates" are seemingly smoke screens used in the 1905 paper to avoid the disclosure that the Einsteins' theory was an unoriginal, somewhat Cohnesque, form of the Lorentz Transformation, which was in fact the Boscovich-Voigt-FitzGerald-Larmor-Lorentz-Langevin-Poincaré Transformation--a quite well-known, multi-party theory by 1905, and, hence, quite a mouthful to recount.
It is not possible to infer the Lorentz Transformation from the "two postulates" via the method the Einsteins attempted, and as the "two postulates" are framed in the 1905 paper. The addition of velocities of c +/- v, which is assumed between light and the moving system in the "resting system" renders geometrically meaningless the given identity of
c' = c,
which the Einsteins artificially forced between the resting and moving systems, unless the means of measurement in the moving system are presumed different, which presumption in the 1905 paper appears as an unjustified "kinematic" mystery, as opposed to the true "geometric" form, the paper supposes, disclosed by irrational "inertial motion" to which the paper pretends. The Einsteins even felt compelled to warn us that they had presumed length contraction, before they supposedly "derive it" with the following false premise and non sequiturs,
"The length to be discovered in the case of procedure b), which we want to call 'the length of the (moving) rod in the resting system', we will determine on the basis of our two principles and find that it differs from l.
The kinematics in general use tacitly takes for granted that the lengths determined by both of the stated procedures are the exactly same, or, in other words, that a moving rigid body in the epoch of time t is, in geometrical respects, an exact substitute for the same body, when it rests in a fixed position."
Now, if it is a mistake to assume that a moving body represents the length of the resting body, why must we assume that the two distinct bodies are "in all respects the same" merely because they are "reciprocally different"? Is "relative simultaneity" absolute? Is it Galilean with a butchered definition of simultaneity? If not, why pretend that "reciprocally different" means "identical"?
The Einsteins' fundamental error in 1905 was in setting out to prove that the "two postulates" are intrinsically compatible, instead of synthetically, a posteriori, establishing the "principle of relativity" as a corollary to the light hypothesis--coupled with Lorentzian geometry, as did Lorentz and Poincaré. The Einsteins may have made this blunder by aping Poincaré, without fully understanding him. They may have made it by disguising Lorentz' theory. Perhaps the two alternatives are one fact.
Since the 1905 paper addresses absolute motion, the "twins paradox" is no paradox at all in the 1905 paper, where it appears as the rate of a clock in absolute motion compared to the rate of an absolutely resting clock, and, equivalently, as the divergent rates of clocks found at the poles and the equator of the Earth. This is a refutation of Poincaré's principle of relativity, which expressly states that absolute motion is undetectable. It is also a refutation of the Einsteins' principle of relativity, which asserts that,
"the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties of the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics".
The so-called "relativity postulate" is not a postulate at all in the special theory of relativity. Rather, the "principle of relativity" is a corollary (just as in Newton's Principia, it is a corollary to the laws of motion) to the assertions, that light speed is isotropic and invariant in all inertial systems, and that the detection of light's medium equates to the detection of absolute space--a common corollary made by Everett, FitzGerald, Larmor, Lorentz, Rowland, Poincaré, Langevin, etc. . . . The Einsteins' referring to this corollary as a "postulate" is another instance of their irrationality, and their need to hide the fact that they were simply parroting Lorentz and Poincaré, though they probably weren't as clever as I imply, and simply parroted Poincaré verbatim, without much, if any, insight of their own.
Poincaré made puns of the "two postulates" and irrationally exploited these puns, taking Roemer's assumptions of a finite speed to, and uniform motion of, light, and using this language of simultaneous events in confusion with Lorentz' irrational assumption of invariant celeritas between relatively moving frames, and by further taking Newton's Fifth Corollary to the inertial Laws of Motion, and confusing its language of action and reaction with Lorentz' assumption of invariant celeritas between relatively moving frames, by irrationally confusing the detection of the aether, with the detection of absolute position.
Poincaré knew better, even if he didn't act better, and qualified his statements as he made them, knowing full well that he was exploiting the myths and legends of the day, as well as his puns, to create a semantic fallacy.
It was Lorentz, who properly phrased the corollary of relativity in 1904,
"It would be more satisfactory, if it were possible to show, by means of certain fundamental assumptions, and without neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system."
Notice that Lorentz, for one, realized that the principle of relativity is a corollary, which results from "fundamental assumptions", among these, the law of inertia (being the same as the law of force, and the law of equal and opposite action and reaction), the hypotheses of length contraction, time dilatation and relative simultaneity (being the same as "position-time"), and the theory of Maxwell's equations for the medium.
Exactly the same can be said of Poincaré's "light postulate" ( which differs from the Einsteins', in that it states that the speed of light is invariant for all inertial systems--definitionally), for it, too, is a corollary to the aforesaid "fundamental assumptions". If the Einsteins, in 1905, had properly formulated their theory, stating the principle of relativity as the Corollary it is, was, and will always be, they would have disclosed that they were drawing Lorentz' inference. They opted for irrationality, their disguise, instead. It paid off for them, as a century of flakes and sycophants lauded what was patently irrational on its face, the Einsteins' two postulate myth.
The Einsteins averred,
"that the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties of the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, on the contrary, for all systems of coordinates, for which the equations of mechanics are valid, the same electrodynamic and optical laws are also valid, as has already been proven for the magnitudes of the first order."
which is merely an extension of Newton's "Fifth Corollary" to Newton's "Laws of Motion" (based on the Einsteins' artificially and semantically quasi-positivistically defining Maxwell's dynamic process of the equations for light propagation in its medium, as a new "Law of Motion"). Newton's Fifth Corollary, the so-called "principle of relativity", reads as follows,
"The motions of bodies included in a given space are the same among themselves, whether that space is at rest, or moves uniformly forwards in a right line without any circular motion.
For the differences of the motions tending towards the same parts, and the sums of those that tend towards contrary parts, are, at first (by supposition), in both cases the same; and it is from those sums and differences that the collisions and impulses do arise with which the bodies mutually impinge one upon another. Wherefore (by Law II), the effects of those collisions will be equal in both cases; and therefore the mutual motions of the bodies among themselves in the one case will remain equal to the mutual motions of the bodies among themselves in the other. A clear proof of which we have from the experiment of a ship; where all motions happen after the same manner, whether the ship is at rest, or is carried uniformly forwards in a right line."
and the "first postulate" is not a new "postulate" at all, but an archaic and religiously arcane Corollary, based on false premises, those of the mythological "inertial system" implicit in Newton's bogus "laws of motion".
The "paradox of the twins", in the 1905 paper, is not a paradox, but rather a prediction of the effects of the absolute motion of moving bodies, for a clock at the equator necessarily has greater absolute velocity than a clock at one of the poles, due to the Earth's absolute rotation, and the assertion is therefore not a paradox, per se, but an express and internal contradiction of the Einsteins' theoretical requirement that absolute space evince no characteristic properties--that it, and its effects, be indiscernible, or, as the Einsteins euphemistically disguised it, the non-paradox was an "eigentümliche Konsequenz" of absolute motion. I suppose that one might argue with a fair degree of merit that the Einsteins' stipulation was that absolute rest evinces no characteristic properties, and not absolute motions, such as accelerations and time dilatation effects. . . they never expressly exclude the possibility of the detection of absolute space "by any and all means", in the 1905 paper.
Though the Einsteins repeatedly blundered in attempting to formulate a theory of inference from the "two postulates" to the Lorentz Transformation, the question remains as to whether or not such a feat can be rationally achieved, and I use the term "rationally" loosely, as I don't consider the Poincaré-Lorentz theory of relativity to be a rational theory of measurement, in whatever guise or disguise it is attempted. There is an artificial assumption made in all such "derivations" that c' = c, isotropically, which has no meaning as an identity, but is rather an irrational comparison of two forced--definitional abstractions. We know that all velocities are conceptualized from other measurements made with material apparatus in the form of "rigid bodies" and "relatively resting clocks"--uniform motions, and velocity is not a direct measurement in and of itself.
This unwarranted, ad hoc assumption, that c' = c coupled with other artificial constants, is an equivalent disguise for the [beta] scale factor and fundamentally abuses the concept of a geometric constant. Neither postulate, as framed in 1905, asserts that c' = c, but rather, c' = c is assumed to be the logical conclusion of the combination of the two postulates, though it is not. Since neither postulate avers that c' = c, its assumption, as a premise, to arrive back at it, as a conclusion, is an argument made in a circle. Furthermore, by way of analogy, one does not take a meter stick at a given temperature, and equate it, and measurements taken with it, at another temperature, as a constant--the same meter stick in all respects equivalent to itself--except for its complete difference from itself in different physical states. The concept of ceteris paribus is utterly abused by artificially setting variables as constants, or c' = c, and further by coupling this delusion of variables as dimensions with other variables and proportionality factors--as though reciprocally equivalent.
At best, based exclusively on the combination of the two postulates, we can assert Petitio Principii that axiomatic celeritas is ideally geometrically equivalent to measurements of pretend spans of homogenous and isotropic ideal aether--distances and pretend, circularly defined uniform motions--time in the pretend resting system of Maxwell's equations for the medium which we pretend rests, absolute space, since it is the intrinsic, dynamic velocity of propagation in the medium, which is, by definition only, ontologically homogenous and isotropic; and, that physically determined c' is arrived at by measurements of d' and t' in the moving system made with co-moving, rigid material apparatus, and any algebraic transformation presented to equate d to d' and t to t' incorporates ad hoc new assumptions, tacitly, or explicitly, and is not the creation of an identity, but a fallacy of false comparison. Another fallacy is that bodies in a definite state of motion--bodies in absolute motion--have a kinematic shape when observed by resting observers in resting space, which is to say that moving bodies suffer from a contraction in the line of their absolute motion, which distortion is observable to absolutely resting observers, but these moving bodies return to their geometric shape--their shape when at absolute rest--when observed by co-moving, rigidly-attached observers, who are identically distorted in their kinematic shape, and therefore cannot perceive the change. If you shrink in the identical proportion together with the stick with which you measure yourself, the measurement you take will remain unchanged. Likewise, moving observers view resting bodies in their kinematic form, not their true geometric resting form. Attributing this supposed distortion to "relative simultaneity", by causing it through "relative simultaneity" is yet another instance of Petitio Principii found in the special theory of relativity. It is a cause attributed to circularly defined words, and nothing else. That artificially and arbitrarily defined "relative simultaneity" causes length contraction and time dilatation on paper, Petitio Principii, should not be understood to mean that length contraction and time dilatation do not occur physically, if they are detected by means of measurement, which means have nothing to do with the Einsteins' preposterous and impossible "method of measurement". Bodies in different physical states behave differently--which should come as no surprise to anyone. The measurement delusion is simply an instance of the positivist's burying his or her head in the sand to award his or her hero, Albert Einstein, credit for a theory which was not his, or hers. . . .
The ad hoc assumptions arrived at by Lorentz and the Einsteins are thus identical in their expressions and predictions, and differ only metaphysically and semantically, with Poincaré trumping the Einsteins on the issue of metaphysical and semantic priority, as well.
All versions of the Lorentz Transformation are "derived" from the premise that c' is measured to equal c, which is without geometric meaning, if simultaneity is relative, and, therefore, no version is satisfactory. There is no identity where there is no simultaneity or constant scale. There is no one relation being measured. We can set a pound of peaches equal to a pound of pears as an abstract algebraic identity, but we cannot assert that the same "body" is being measured in reality, and we cannot transform peaches into pears by their purely abstract identity as "weights". The same holds true for continuous space and time, which do not equate to variable bodies and motions, but exist conceptually in and of themselves as existence, per se.
We cannot rationally assert that the same "celeritas" is being measured by two distinct realities, that of independent systems K and k, even if we assume that the "same light" is being observed. There is no "transformation" to be had. The light being measured is not the abstract quantity, celeritas, but a physical phenomenon. The time being measured is, therefore, not being measured by omnidirectional, isotropic clocks, for light is not an isotropic clock for systems in relative motion. Utilizing an anisotropic clock, light, to determine conceptualized simultaneity, is fundamentally irrational. "Celeritas" is a derived unit itself, abstracted in conceptualizing a relation between measured time and measured distance, and relates only to the system in which it is measured, by definition. It is truly relative, and never absolute. Light, as a physical phenomenon, should not be confused with a rigid geometry posturing as an abstract invariant speed. Speed is abstracted from measurement, it cannot be measured, per se. We can never measure velocity. There is no such physical thing as distance divided by time. Speed is an abstraction. Light is a physically real wave disturbance.
Stanley Goldberg's impression of the two postulates found in his work Understanding Relativity39 is typical of the modern view. He claims three distinguishable versions of each postulate, as being equivalent. For the first postulate, Goldberg conveys the following definitions, as though equivalent:
"a. The laws of physics have the same form in all inertial frames of reference.
b. The laws of physics are covariant in all inertial frames of reference.
c. No experiment can be performed to determine which of two different inertial frames of reference is moving."
Note that statements "a" and "b" are positive statements. Statement "c" is a negative statement. It is a non sequitur to assume that the positive statements "a" and "b" are equivalent to the negative statement "c". What if "a" and "b" were not true? What if the opposite of "a" and "b" were assumed to be true? Would experiment then reveal which of two "inertial frames" in relative motion was "moving" or "resting"? The answer is, NO!
The entire issue is silly semantics based on a false definition. Semantically, both move and both rest--in human misconceptions brought on by language. The inane definition of the forcelessness of the force of inertia implies that the relative motion between two inertial systems, each in relative motion to the other, is a bizarre reciprocal state, the motion of each being the motion of the other, with no cause to either motion, for each rests forcelessly, but with accelerations being caused by the force of action-reaction. In other words, nothing is causing one, the other, or both inertial systems to move, other than their relation to each other as resting-moving systems. Nothing could be more anthropomorphic! The concept of relativity believes physical occurrences to be the result of our perceptions, instead of our perceptions resulting from physical occurrences. Surely, non-inertial motions are the same as inertial motions, all being due to the change of the universe--all being change, and, ultimately, resulting from neither force nor forcelessness. Neither inertial system endures so as to be able to move, or to rest. The universe changes. Only words endure--commands to our imaginations, which we train ourselves to obey, in spite of our observations, which observations discredit the misbegotten words and images of language.40 And as Larmor pointed out in 1900, should we view the universe as a whole, force is meaningless, but as a local issue, it is a useful abstraction.41
The negative statement of the principle of relativity is not the same as the positive statement of the principle of relativity. There simply is no absolute, unchanging world, regardless of the nature of our laws, be they the same, or divergent, among artificial inertial systems. The principle of relativity is today a straw man, initially raised to knock down the myths of the Ptolemaic system. It has nothing to do with light or velocity. It is the psychological perception we have when our inner ears lead us to feel that we are "at rest". Why must we assume that this feeling has anything whatsoever to do with "absolute position" as a positive, or as a negative, assertion?
Goldberg claims that the second postulate equivalently signifies:
"a. The speed of light in empty space is an invariant.
b. The speed of light in empty space is the same in all directions and is independent of the motion of the source or the observer.
c. The speed of light in empty space has the same value in all inertial frames of reference."
Statement "a", if amended to include the stipulation that the speed of light is finite, would represent the view of Cassini and Roemer. If the criterion Goldberg artificially adds (which is not stated in the 1905 paper), "or the observer" is dropped, as it must be, then statement "b" is the definition of a wave propagation in a homogenous and isotropic medium, and is the Huygens-Maxwell-Hertz-Larmor-Lorentz-Einstein view for the resting system--the medium of propagation. Statement "c" is ambiguous, for it can be interpreted as Galilean, or as Lorentzian. Statement "c", if qualified to be Lorentzian, is expressly the conclusion of the 1905 paper, not one of its postulates, for the paper expressly states,
"It is easy, with the help of this result, to ascertain the magnitudes [xi], [eta], [zeta], because one expresses by means of these equations, that light (as the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, in conjunction with the principle of relativity, requires) also propagates with the velocity c as measured in the moving system."
Goldberg has accurately recounted the modern view of the two postulates, with their ambiguities and puns intact, which modern view is demonstrably false.
In the modern and false interpretation of the "two postulates", they are redundant to each other, both stating that Maxwell's equations yield the same value for the speed of light in all inertial systems, and are therefore the fallacy of Petitio Principii, for deriving such a conclusion is the purpose of the paper. Contrary to the circular argument, the principle of relativity, taken as a "postulate", does not state that there is no addition of velocities for light, but rather compels an addition of velocity for light, taken as a "postulate", which "postulate" is asserted prior to the assumption (note that I did not state "derivation") of Lorentzian geometry. Therefore, Goldberg's statement "c" of the first postulate cannot be construed to represent experiments meant to detect the frame of the medium for light propagation, unless one assumes that light has an absolute velocity, for otherwise there would be no correlation between light's medium and absolute rest, and, therefore, pursuant to Goldberg's theorization, if one were to detect the privileged frame of that velocity, light's medium, one would find absolute space, which is a non sequitur, since the aether is expressly denied. Light can only have an "absolute velocity", independent of the motion of the source, if that velocity is the velocity of a wave in a medium.
The Einsteins wrote,
"Examples of a similar kind, as well as the failed attempts to find a motion of the earth relative to the "light medium", lead to the supposition, that the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties of the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, on the contrary, for all systems of coordinates, for which the equations of mechanics are valid, the same electrodynamic and optical laws are also valid, as has already been proven for the magnitudes of the first order."
The Einsteins' statement is false. Many first order effects were thought to have detected relative motion of the Earth and the aether. Motion of the Earth with respect to the aether was believed to have been detected by the phenomena of aberration and the Doppler-Fizeau Effect. Not only that, but this alleged relative motion supposedly served as a means for determining the velocity of light based upon the known motion of the Earth, and hence revealed the supposed frame of the medium--in direct contradiction to the known motion of the Solar System. If one believes that aberration does not reveal the frame of the medium, then one cannot use the phenomenon of aberration to discount the possibility of a mobile aether. Of course, the "relativists" must tweak the formulation of aberration in order to hide the aether frame, but even the new formulation admits of relative motion of the medium and the earth, disguised as the relative motion of source, projectile and receiver. The problems associated with the theory of aberration are many, and beyond the scope of the present discussion. The same is true of the Doppler-Fizeau Effect, which likewise discloses the medium, as Herbert Dingle has explained, and which requires tremendous leaps of fantasy to be conceived of as other than an aethereal phenomenon.
The Einsteins' assertion that classical mechanics possesses no properties corresponding to absolute rest is false and is based on Newton's fallacy that a body at rest and a body in uniform motion are subjected to no forces, when the rational conclusion is that bodies in relative uniform motion are subjected to different forces from a body "at rest", forces here being understood as the interplay of "body" and "medium" as the perpetual change of the universe, and it being further understood that "relative uniform motions" are definitional and not real.
Since every body is different from every other body, lest two bodies be the same body with two different names, and, further, since the status of the medium surrounding each body is different, not only in its pressures, but due to its status as surrounding a different body, the "forces" are axiomatically different for each body in the universe, and relative rest is a fallacy.
The Einsteins, who were supposedly relativists, should have realized that Newtonian mechanics is a fallacy, and that, not only is there no property of absolute, or relative, rest, there is no property of uniform motion, as motion requires at least two objects and each body has a field which imparts force, and, therefore, there can be no forceless inertial relative motion between two abstractly isolated bodies, let alone in the cluttered universe we observe.
That Newton had one definition of absolute rest, does not mean that any other definition of rest is ipso facto "relative". The modern theory of special relativity adopted Ludwig Lange's absolute rest of the "inertial system", which is different from Newton's absolute rest, but is yet absolute. Though Newton defined absolute rest as a specific frame and the Einsteins accepted that notion with their "resting system", Ludwig Lange changed Newton's definition of absolute rest to the case of perpetual forcelessness, whereby, a body subjected to no force, rests, and two bodies which move relative to each other, may each be at absolute rest, if subjected to no forces.
Lange simply pursued Newton's Fifth Corollary to its logical conclusion, that conclusion being that what is called and abstracted as "absolute rest" and what is called and abstracted as "uniform, rectilinear motion of translation" are just two names for the same abstract absolute, the "resting" state of existence of a body, which body is not subjected to any "force". "Absolute rest", for Lange, is not a privileged reference frame, as it is for Newton and the Einsteins, but is a given body's state when subjected to no forces. Hence, it is incorrect to assert that classical mechanics holds no properties corresponding to absolute rest, for inertia is the property of absolute rest, which absolute rest is one thing, forceless being, given two names in classical mechanics, the names of "rest" and "uniform rectilinear motion of translation". However, this one thing, inertial forcelessness, must be interpolated mathematically in abstraction, for it never has been observed to occur in Nature--cannot rationally occur in the known universe, and is therefore a human delusion, which contradicts its premises, and is not an observable--both in the myths of classical mechanics and in the myths of the special theory of relativity. This one thing, inertial forcelessness, bears many properties in both classical mechanics and in the modern special theory of relativity, such as the alleged fact that bodies in inertial relative motion overcome equal distances in equal times, and move rectilinearly. Light is just one such uniform motion of translation, but it is not isotropic. Light is not a valid two-way clock between systems in relative motion.
As far as the Einsteins were concerned, in 1905, bodies resting in Newton's privileged, resting frame have an absolute geometric form, which is also perceived by co-moving observers should the bodies and observers be put into forceless motion and contract along their axis of motion, and measure distances according to a self-contradictory and impossible to perform light signaling process. The Einsteins' parroted Lorentz' view and Poincaré's inane method, in 1905, and did not realize that there is no distinction between resting forcelessness and moving forcelessness, though Poincaré clearly had. The Einsteins, then, absurdly (along with crowd), associated abstract and self-contradictory resting forcelessness with the medium of light propagation and inanely confused the medium of light propagation with abstract absolute rest.
It was a twin Cerberus of non sequiturs: resting forcelessness = light medium = absolute space; and in contradistinction: moving forcelessness = uniform and isotropic motion of light = the Lorentz Transformation adjusted uniform translation of absolute space.
Paradoxically, the maintenance of the absolute laws of Nature from the privileged frame of reference to uniformly moving frames of reference is itself a property corresponding to the idea of absolute rest, in the Einsteins' myths, though they apparently lacked the insight to realize it, or perhaps were simply aping the irrational assertions of others. Since the principle of relativity, in the 1905 paper, is limited to Lange's surreal absolute rest, the "Minkowski" uniform translation of space, in the modern view, and to "uniform motion" as opposed to "rest" in the 1905 paper itself, there is no implication that absolute rest is, or is not, undetectable through acceleration, through "force", because "forcelessness" becomes the axiomatic and circular definition of the uniform translation of "space" and "time" via Galileo's mythical laws of uniform motion. Light is simply alleged to be a Galilean uniform, translatory motion in all inertial frames--an inertial frame is that in which light is a uniform motion--which is fundamentally equivalent to stating that light does not move, but rather everything moves about light at "light speed"--"everything speed", even though this "motion" requires that everything moves in opposing directions at this "everything speed" for light can anti-propagate the universe about it in all directions. When we eventually return to the reality that light is a wave disturbance in a medium, we will laugh at the absurdity of the assertion that light does not move, for light is progressive changes of state in a medium and not an unchanging body which can be said to "rest". No one who observes that different portions of water compose a propagating water wave, would contend that the wave "rests", or that the water passes through the wave, the different portions of water attaining the wave's nature as a distortion of "space-time", whilst the water passes through the wave, and yet this is what is fundamentally asserted in the special theory of relativity (Clifford's light), when the numerological veil is lifted. Ultimately, the disturbance and the medium are one, and the apparent mystically reciprocal nature of their being, stated as relational, is the delusion of an artificial, linguistic distinction.
The Einsteins again violate their requirement that absolute rest evince no characteristic properties, with their example of the absolute motion of clocks at the equator and poles of the Earth, which, according to the Einsteins, should render different readings due to the different absolute motion of each, if their theory is viable.
The Einsteins also assigned the ultimate property of absolute rest to light, in that they equate the detection of the frame of the medium of light propagation to the detection of absolute space, itself! The Einsteins' absolutist fallacy is as bogus as Newton's absurd assertion that forces cause absolute changes in velocity and the force of inertia (forcelessness) is the absence of forces, or, per Newton's absurdities, forcelessness = force.
Since the second postulate requires that light speed be isotropic in the resting system, one of the laws of the resting system is that the velocity of light is added to the velocity of moving bodies, in a Galilean Transformation, and, therefore, since light is not an isotropic clock relative to moving bodies, light speed cannot be isotropic in a moving system, other than by redefining "isotropic" to be a synonym for "anisiotropic", in an irrational, semantical disguise for Lorentz geometry.
The first postulate does not state that light speed is isotropic in the moving system, any more than Newton's Fifth Corollary states that the speed of sound in air is isotropic for all systems in relative motion. In order to arrive at Lorentz invariant light speed, the first postulate must be changed to drop its requirement that the laws of physics be the same in all systems in uniform motion, and instead require that the speed of light be the same, and be isotropic, in all systems in uniform motion, viz. Goldberg's "c" for the second postulate, as the two "postulates" are mutually exclusive.
However, if the first postulate is redefined to state that the speed of light is the same and is isotropic in all inertial systems; and, the second postulate is redefined to state that the speed of light is the same and is isotropic in all inertial systems; then, the two postulates are either redundant to each other, or one is deducible from the other as a corollary, and is not a postulate.
Since the "laws" of physics require that velocity is a relative concept, the velocity of light in the resting system is the motion of light relative to some body. The light "law" is one of relative motion between light and body and does not live by light alone. For this law to be the same in all inertial systems, simultaneity must be the same in all inertial systems, and the same light which moves at celeritas relative to the same bodies, must do so in all inertial systems, viz. the Galilean Transformation, or the "law" is in no wise the "same", as it would no longer address identities, but rather delusions. "Same" requires exact identities, which identities are absent in the special theory of relativity.
Equating real light to conceptually relatively "resting" bodies of any system, does not represent a physical law, but a conceptual law. It is an arbitrary and artificial rule of language, not a law of Nature. There is only the relative motion between a given body and a given light wave, not "rest" in any sense. If the relative velocity between any given beam of light and any given body changes between observers, then the "law" has been broken.
If we change the "law" to correlate light, not to a given body, but to an equivalent conceptual state, a body in unforced motion, then the "two postulates" are one assertion with two names, for the light postulate is then not the law of one system, but is a law of all "equivalent" systems, and the relativity "postulate", which compels the congruence of the law of one system with all other "equivalent" systems, is already contained in the light law itself, which is not the law of one system, but of all "equivalent" systems.
The principle of relativity is a red herring, for, as it is used in this context, it can mean either of two things, and is therefore a meaningless pun embracing all mutually exclusive possibilities: That the addition of velocities is understood as Euclidean, whereby the laws of electrodynamics are the same for all systems, just as the laws of sound are the same for all systems, and therefore the speed of light, though it may be a universal constant in its medium, is subject to the Euclidean laws of velocity addition; or: That the laws of electrodynamics can remain the same in all inertial systems, even if the speed of light is the same, and is isotropic, in all inertial systems. And we see in the 1905 paper that the Einsteins play off of their puns (Poincaré's puns) to confuse the reader with smoke and mirrors into believing that anisotropic light speed is isotropic.
If the former definition is chosen, then the theory of special relativity is obviated. If the latter alternative is chosen, then the first postulate is not a postulate, but a conclusion, which is derived from the modern interpretation of the second postulate, that the speed of light is the same and is isotropic in all inertial systems, and which merely states that the classical principle of relativity can be maintained even if the modern interpretation of Goldberg's "c" of the second postulate is asserted. When, as in the 1905 paper, the pun is exploited, the theory is a fallacy.
The so-called "principle of relativity" is not the principle of relativity itself, but a conclusion that the principle of relativity is not violated by Lorentzian geometry, and to assert this conclusion as though it were a postulate is irrational, it is the unforgivable fallacy of Petitio Principii. Notice that in the modern view, light speed is tacitly presumed to be absolute, for otherwise, detecting its medium would in no wise equate to detecting absolute rest. Note further that Newton, who agreed with Goldberg's "a" for the first postulate, firmly held that many tests must detect absolute space, in direct contradiction to Goldberg's "c" for the same "postulate", which is, in fact, nothing but a corollary. Note still further that Goldberg's "c" for the first "postulate" is relevant only to tests involving uniform motions, and does not apply to tests involving accelerations. Therefore, Goldberg's "c" for the first "postulate" is a mandate of absolutivity and not a principle of relativity--that of the undetectable, though absolute frame of the absolute velocity of light.
The confusion stems from an insecure need in the 1920's to award the great hero "Einstein" credit for Lorentz' theory, as evinced in the mistranslation of the Einsteins' 1905 paper into English,
"Es liege ein Koordinatensystem vor, in welchem die Newtonischen mechanischen Gleichungen gelten. Wir nennen dies Koordinatensystem zur sprachlichen Unterscheidung von später einzuführenden Koordinatensystemen und zur Präzisierung der Vorstellung das 'ruhende System'."
which the standard English translation claims represents,
"Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the 'stationary system'."42
Said translation is certainly incorrect and leads Einsteins' apologists to assume that the "stationary system" and the "moving systems" used in the paper are merely interchangeable generic labels, and that "stationary" does not mean the present participle "resting", which it is in the original German, but is merely a label such as "K", as in the "system K". The obvious fact seemingly eludes many, that the Einsteins employed the generic labels "K" and "k", but contradistinguished the state of "resting" from the state of "motion".
There is a large body of evidence which refutes their misunderstanding. Albert's 1916 paper on the general theory of relativity makes abundantly clear that the "stationary system" is a privileged system, and that "stationary" carries with it its classical meaning of "absolutely resting". Herman Minkowski and Isaac Newton also clarify that the "resting system" is different from the "moving systems" in rectilinear, uniform motion of translation through space. "Uniform motion" is definitely different from "the state of rest" in Newtonian mechanics. Minkowski informs us that the standard, contemporary view ca. 1905 was that space was itself at rest, and that the equations of Newtonian mechanics related to the resting system of space, and only by transformation represented a distinct set of equations for uniform motions of translation,
"The equations of Newton's mechanics exhibit a two-fold invariance. Their form remains unaltered, firstly, if we subject the underlying system of spatial co-ordinates to any arbitrary change of position; secondly, if we change its state of motion, namely, by imparting to it any uniform translatory motion; furthermore, the zero point of time is given no part to play. We are accustomed to look upon the axioms of geometry as finished with, when we feel ripe for the axioms of mechanics, and for that reason the two invariances are probably rarely mentioned in the same breath. Each of them by itself signifies, for the differential equations of mechanics, a certain group of transformations. The existence of the first group is looked upon as a fundamental characteristic of space. The second group is preferably treated with disdain, so that we with untroubled minds may overcome the difficulty of never being able to decide, from physical phenomena, whether space, which is supposed to be stationary, may not be after all in a state of uniform translation. Thus the two groups, side by side, lead their lives entirely apart. Their utterly heterogeneous character may have discouraged any attempt to compound them. But it is precisely when they are compounded that the complete group, as a whole, gives us to think."43
"Die Gleichungen der Newtonschen Mechanik zeigen eine zweifache Invarianz. Einmal bleibt ihre Form erhalten, wenn man das zugrunde gelegte räumliche Koordinatensystem einer beliebigen Lagenveränderung unterwirft, zweitens, wenn man es in seinem Bewegungszustande verändert, nämlich ihm irgendeine gleichförmige Translation aufprägt; auch spielt der Nullpunkt der Zeit keine Rolle. Man ist gewohnt, die Axiome der Geometrie als erledigt anzusehen, wenn man sich reif für die Axiome der Mechanik fühlt, und deshalb werden jene zwei Invarianzen wohl selten in einem Atemzeug genannt. Jede von Ihnen bedeutet eine gewisse Gruppe von Transformationen in sich für die Differentialgleichungen der Mechanik. Die Existenz der ersteren Gruppe sieht man als einen fundamentalen Charakter des Raumes an. Die zweite Gruppe straft man am liebsten mit Verachtung, um leichten Sinnes darüber hinwegzukommen, daß man von den physikalischen Erscheinungen her niemals entscheiden kann, ob der als ruhend vorausgesetzte Raum sich nicht am Ende in einer gleichförmigen Translation befindet. So führen jene zwei Gruppen ein völlig getrenntes Dasein nebeneinander. Ihr gänzlich heterogener Charakter mag davon abgeschreckt haben, sie zu komponieren. Aber gerade die komponierte volle Gruppe als Ganzes gibt uns zu denken auf."
Always, in the Einsteins' 1905 paper, the distinction is had between resting systems and systems in uniform motion, and systems in uniform motion are the product of a resting system, with motion imparted to it, and are definitely not interchangeable with resting systems.
"Unterscheidung" as "contradistinction" represents Dynamics versus Phoronomy, or, in the Einsteins' 1905 paper, resting versus moving, then, in Albert's 1907 and 1915 papers, geometric versus kinematic, all being equivalent a priori statements of the same concept, absolute rest versus absolute motion.
The correct English translation of the paper reads:
"Consider a system of coordinates, in which the Newtonian mechanical equations are valid. In order to put the contradistinction from the [moving] systems of coordinates to be introduced later into words, and for the exact definition of the conceptualization, we call this system of coordinates the 'resting system'."
which is substantially different from the standard translation! The paper clearly contradistinguishes "resting" and "moving", which are classical opposites, and in the given grammatical context, contradistinct present participles indicating action and rest. A contradistinction cannot be a distinction without a difference. The paper makes clear that all of the elements of the "resting system" are themselves in a "state of rest" in "resting space" and are fixed. The paper makes clear that one need only map the coordinates of a material point at rest in the three spatial coordinates of fixed measuring sticks in "resting space", but the position of a moving material point must be a function of time.
The "first postulate" refers exclusively to systems of reference in "uniform motion" and the second postulate refers exclusively to systems of reference in a "state of rest". Such is the language of Newtonian mechanics, as Newton and Minkowski made clear, and the two states of rest and motion are different and are not merely interchangeable "labels". They are expressly not Ludwig Lange's "Inertialsysteme". If the standard translation were accurate, and interpreted as it is commonly interpreted today, the two postulates would be redundant. Most significantly, the paper defines the absolute velocity of light in space, which is independent of the motion of the source, and note well that no mention is made of the motion of the observer, as the second postulate defines an absolute, and not a relation. The two-way average speed of light can only be understood axiomatically to be isotropic in a resting medium of "space". The 1905 paper's infamous thought experiment is meaningless when applied to moving systems, prior to the hypothesis of Lorentzian geometry--it is, rather, the assumption that Maxwell's theory of light propagation in absolute space is valid.
We have here a classic dispute over translation and interpretation, in many ways strikingly similar to the Arian-Nicene debate over "one iota's difference"--"homoousios" or "same substance" versus "homoiousios" or "similar substance" to decide whether Jesus was similar to, or the same as, God. In order to justify granting Albert Einstein priority, many feel compelled to believe that the 1905 paper uses "resting" and "moving" interchangeably, but it clearly does not. In every instance, a clear distinction is had, and one type never reverts to the other. The distinctions are clearly Newtonian, and therefore Lorentzian. Even if the Einsteins' had written the paper differently, the priority would still belong to Poincaré. But in raising Albert to the status of a god, it is necessary that the express contradistinction of "resting" and "moving" found throughout the 1905 paper disappear, lest the paper be seen as the almost verbatim repetition of Lorentz' 1904 paper that it clearly is, and many are seemingly willing to overlook the fact that Poincaré holds many years' priority over Albert on the non-Lorentzian issues.
So inexplicably close are Lorentz' work of 1904, and the Einsteins' paper of 1905, that in the 1913 republication of the Einsteins' 1905 paper together with Lorentz' 1904 paper (and an excerpt from Lorentz 1895 book), in "Das Relativitätsprinzip" that Arnold Sommerfeld felt compelled to claim regarding the Einsteins' 1905 paper that,
"The previously published work of H. A. Lorentz was not yet known to the author."
"Die im Vorhergehenden abgedruckte Arbeit von H. A. Lorentz war dem Verfasser noch nicht bekannt."44
However, G. H. Keswani45 disputed this prima facie spurious claim. Keswani avers that the Einsteins' 1905 paper's assertion of conformity between the relativity-principle and Lorentzian electrodynamics could only have referred to Lorentz' paper of 1904, and that Lorentz' earlier efforts were not in conformity with the principle of relativity, according to Keswani, and Max Born would seemingly have agreed,
"In the new theory of Lorentz the principle of relativity holds, in conformity with the results of experiment, for all electrodynamic events." 46
Albert stated that,
"At that time I firmly believed that the electrodynamic equations of Maxwell and Lorentz were correct. Furthermore, the assumption that these equations should hold in the reference frame of the moving body leads to the concept of the invariance of the velocity of light, which, however, contradicts the addition rule of velocities used in mechanics. Why do these concepts contradict each other? I realized that this difficulty was really hard to resolve. I spent almost a year in vain trying to modify the idea of Lorentz in the hope of resolving this problem."47
Said "year in vain" was the year from 1904 to 1905, and the missing link required to "modify the ['relativistic' addition rule of velocities implicit in the Lorentz transformation group]" was effectively supplied by Poincaré a few weeks before Mileva and Albert submitted their 1905 paper.
The Einsteins, in 1905, did not assert a theory which incorporated the inertial system concept, but relied upon Newtonian laws of absolute motion. The Einsteins' principle of relativity was Newton's Fifth Corollary, not the Copernicus-Galileo-Huygens-Everett-Lange-Poincaré negative assertion that absolute motion is undetectable.
The so-called "two postulates" in question are stated as follows in the 1905 paper:
"1 (a). Examples of a similar kind, as well as the failed attempts to find a motion of the earth relative to the "light medium", lead to the supposition, that the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties of the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics, on the contrary, for all systems of coordinates, for which the equations of mechanics are valid, the same electrodynamic and optical laws are also valid, as has already been proven for the magnitudes of the first order.
1 (b). The laws according to which the states of physical systems change do not depend upon to which of two systems of coordinates, in uniform translatory motion relative to each other, this change of state is referred.
2 (a). [L]ight in empty space always propagates with a determinate velocity c irrespective of the state of motion of the emitting body.
2 (b). Every ray of light moves in the "resting" system of coordinates with the determinate velocity c, irrespective of whether this ray of light is emitted from a resting or moving body. Such that
velocity = (path of light) / (interval of time) ,
where "interval of time" is to be construed in the sense of the definition of Sec. 1."
Note that the second postulate, in contradistinction to Goldberg's "b", does not state that the velocity of light in space is independent of the observer's motion, for the second postulate is a definition of the absolute velocity of light in absolute space, and there can be no "observer's motion", for the velocity is absolute and not relational. However, this absolute light law also expresses the relation of light to an absolutely resting body.
What do these somewhat obscure and supposedly inconsistent "postulates" mean? The Einsteins semantically define Maxwell's dynamic equations for light in its medium as a fundamental "law" of Nature. They also irrationally define as a "postulate" the "corollary" that laws are the same in all systems in uniform motion. Since they believe that they have postulated that "laws" are the same in all systems in uniform motion, and further since they have semantically defined Maxwell's dynamic equations for the medium as a "law", the Einsteins simplistically assert that Maxwell's equations are invariant in systems in uniform motion, for the "law" of Maxwell's dynamic equations must be the same "law" in all systems of uniform motion. However, the Einsteins have committed the sin of the fallacy of confusion. The linguistic definitions of "it's so, because I say it's so" do not work in physical theory in the manner the Einsteins tried to force, for they are still bound by the rules of logic to maintain internal consistency.
By these same two postulates, it is a "law" that bodies in the resting system, rest, and, therefore, the same bodies which rest in the resting system must also rest in the moving system, by definition, and the semantic argument of definitions, therefore, fails, as it is transparently absurd, directly contradicting itself, for that which rests is not moving.
The "law" of the second postulate states that light has a universally constant velocity of celeritas in the resting system, and this "law" is built of many elements. Velocity must be velocity relative to some thing. In the case of the resting system, this thing must be at rest relative to the resting system, for, otherwise, the velocity of light would be added to the velocity of the thing. The "law" of the constancy of the absolute velocity of light in the resting system may also represent both light and a given, resting object. The "law" embraces the relation of light to this given, resting object. The "law" compels that the velocity of light relative to this object be constant. Therefore, since this "law" must be the same in all systems in uniform motion, the relative velocity of light to this given object must be the same in all systems in uniform motion, and the Lorentz Transformation, which defeats this axiomatic fact, is a contradiction of the "law", and the two postulate myth is summarily defeated due to its internal inconsistencies.
It is a "law" of classical mechanics, and no less so of the special theory of relativity, that a body at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by a force. Does the principle of relativity compel, therefore, that a body at rest in resting space, a body subjected to no force, also be at rest in the moving system? The "laws" of the moving system are, after all, the same as those of the resting system. Since we are not entitled to infer from the principle of relativity that a body which rests in the resting system must also rest in the moving system, we are not entitled to infer from the principle of relativity that the same beam of light which propagates in the resting system at celeritas also propagates at celeritas in the moving system, and there truly is no contradiction, or even a manifest correlation, between the two "postulates".
If we change the second postulate to state that the same beam of light propagates at celeritas in all inertial systems, and add this as a "law" to Newton's laws of motion, then the so-called "postulate" of the principle of relativity is no postulate at all, but is the corollary it is in Newton's Principia, the Fifth Corollary to Newton's laws of motion, for it is a consequence and not a fundamental assumption.
The Einsteins employed the fallacy of Petitio Principii, artificially setting c' = c and adding a proportionality factor between frames, in order to tacitly presume the required additional hypotheses of length contraction, time dilatation and relative simultaneity needed to formulate the theory, for the Lorentz Transformation cannot be derived solely from the two postulates, as shown above, which is why the modern view simply states the conclusion of the theory as its postulates, viz. Goldberg's analysis, in which the postulates are redundant, tacitly presume that light speed is absolute, and are, Petitio Principii, the conclusion, as well as, the premise of the theory. The Lorentz Transformation is a proposed cause of the observed conclusion that light speed is invariant. The theory seeks to explain light speed invariance through the theoretical reciprocity of the Lorentz Transformation, but the modern view seemingly would have us believe that the goal of the theory is to explain the theoretical reciprocity of the Lorentz Transformation, through light speed invariance, thereby turning the theory, and logic itself, on its head. It is light speed invariance which was supposedly observed, not the Lorentz Transformation. Many theories have accounted for the supposedly observed light speed invariance. The Lorentz Transformation is but one. The pseudo-relativists are only pretending, through the exploitations of puns, that the Lorentz Transformation is a logical consequence of observables, when it is not. It is instead tacitly assumed by the Einsteins, and openly theorized by Lorentz, to account for supposed observables.
Clement V. Durell rationalized the two postulates as follows:
"(i) It is impossible to detect uniform motion through the ether.
(ii) In all forms of wave motion, the velocity of propagation of the wave is independent of the velocity of the source."48
His remarks are telling, and I will return to the meaning they convey, later.
The reader should note that the Einsteins' 1905 paper discounts the aether as "superfluous", just as Clifford, Lange, Cohn and Poincaré (and effectively, quasi-positivistically, Larmor and Drude) had before it, not because the paper denies absolute space, as common myth now holds, but because Albert may have considered light to be other than an aethereal phenomenon. Absolute space is retained in the 1905 paper, but absolute space allegedly has no properties which are unique--Nature conspires to conceal it from us, should it be sought through optical means in unaccelerated relative motions (given the unproven assumption of Maxwell's dynamic equations for the medium of "space"). As Albert averred in 1907,
"The hypothesis of H. A. Lorentz and G. F. FitzGerald appears then as a necessary consequence of the theory. Only the idea of a luminiferous ether as the carrier of electric and magnetic forces does not fit in with the theory presented here; for electromagnetic fields do not appear here as states of some kind of matter, but rather as independently existing objects, on a par with matter, and sharing with the latter the characteristic of inertia."49
The "necessary consequence" is forced by trying to drive a square peg into a round hole and cram the two postulates into agreement, by wrongfully assuming the non-identity of two distinct systems as an express identity of equals, instead of creating a new theory of metric geometry to formally explain the supposed empirical congruence of the otherwise incongruent "two postulates". The postulates do not prima facie agree, and the addition of constants and proportionality factors to the variables of "dimension" in the "derivation" of the Lorentz Transformation is the tacit hypothesizing of length contraction, time dilatation and relative simultaneity, and these do not follow as a "necessary consequence", but represent ad hoc hypotheses, just as in Lorentz. The "premise" of constant celeritas is the conclusion of the tacit hypotheses of length contraction, time dilatation and relative simultaneity, whereby the derived unit of velocity, celeritas, is turned on its head, and is employed as the basis for deriving the units of length and time, under the absurd assumption that c +/- v represents an isotropic clock between systems. The assumption is that the supposedly known observational fact is that c' = c, and we need to arrive at that conclusion through theorization, we must not theorize through that conclusion, taking it as a premise, lest the result be a foregone conclusion--a fallacy.
In 1907, Albert effectively fused the two postulates into a single light hypothesis,
"the "principle of the constancy of the velocity of light" [***] for a system of coordinates in a definite state of motion".
Though Albert still spoke of the "principle of relativity" in the 1907 paper, after redefining the light postulate, the principle of relativity became superfluous and redundant with respect to the Lorentz Transformation, and is a consequence of it, not the premise behind it. This new 1907 light hypothesis is by no means an axiomatic postulate; as Albert stated,
"That the supposition made here, which we want to call the "principle of the constancy of the velocity of light", is actually met in Nature, is by no means self-evident, nevertheless, it is--at least for a system of coordinates in a definite state of motion--rendered probable through its verification, which Lorentz' theory based upon an absolutely resting aether has ascertained through experiment."
"Daß die hier gemachte Annahme, welche wir ,,Prinzip von der Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit" nennen wollen, in der Natur wirklich erfüllt sei, ist keineswegs selbstverständlich, doch wird dies -- wenigstens für ein Koordinatensystem von bestimmtem Bewegungszustande -- wahrscheinlich gemacht durch die Bestätigungen, welche die, auf die Voraussetzung eines absolut ruhenden Äthers gegründete Lorentzsche Theorie durch das Experiment erfahren hat."50
Notice that in systems in a "definite state of motion", as opposed to those at absolute rest, there is no axiomatic assumption of celeritas. Note well that Albert considered Earth-fixed experiments to be conducted in a definite state of motion, but motion relative to what, if not motion relative to the privileged system? We see that the principle of relativity is rendered redundant in 1907, as the above light hypothesis is expositive of the Michelson-Morley experiment, but Albert uses that experiment for justification of the principle of relativity,
"In reference to which, we now make the most elementary, and, by way of the experiment of Michelson and Morley, reasonable assumption conceivable: The laws of Nature do not depend upon the state of motion of the system of reference, at least in the case where the latter is free from acceleration."
"In bezug hierauf machen wir nun die denkbar einfachste und durch das Experiment von Michelson und Morley nahe gelegte Annahme: Die Naturgesetze sind unabhängig vom Bewegungszustande des Bezugssystems, wenigstens falls letzterer ein beschleunigungsfreier ist."51
The "two postulates" became one light hypothesis in 1907, with the second postulate, Maxwell's dynamic equations for absolute space, tacitly taken as an axiom, and the first postulate, the principle of relativity, rendered surplusage--a consequence of Lorentz geometry, and not a postulate, but a corollary found through Petitio Principii. It is significant that Albert dismisses the notion of the aether to distinguish his views from Lorentz', but never dismisses the notion of absolute rest as the fundamental rest frame of Maxwell's equations!
The Einsteins are playing a subtle and deceptive game. We would find relative simultaneity absolutely intolerable if light were seen as the changing states of a comprehensible aether, but find it less offensive to our sensibilities when we pretend that light is a form of incomprehensible nothing, so-called "empty space". If "empty space" is something other than nothing, then it is not superfluous, it is the aether.
Note that Albert considered the Michelson-Morley experiment to be a test of relative motion. One must ask, motion relative to what? It must be motion relative to absolute space, for in the modern theory of special relativity, the Michelson-Morley experiment tests nothing, can be explained on the basis of an emissions theory or a dragged aether, without relative simultaneity, and represents no relative motion, or acceleration of the axes of the apparatus in the aether wind, whatsoever. Though the Michelson-Morley experiment is supposedly evidence against a relative motion between the Earth and the aether, it is by no means experimental evidence in support of the modern theory of special relativity, where the only relative motion is the slow rotation of the apparatus relative to the laboratory frame and the subtle motions of the Earth, which should render no observable effects, pursuant to the theory. It bears repeating, that the principle of relativity no more requires the invariance of light speed, than it does the invariance of the speed of sound, unless light speed is taken as an absolute velocity and the principle of relativity is taken to mean that absolute velocities cannot be observed--which obviously presumes absolutes.
We must state, together with Lorentz and Poincaré, that if we first hypothesize length contraction and time dilatation, (so-called Lorentzian Geometry) then we are able to conclude that c' = c to the second order, and the hypotheses of length contraction and time dilatation are a viable explanation for the supposedly empirically determined invariance of the measured velocity of light, given the definitional first order transformation of
x' - ct' = x - ct,
which renders observational simultaneity relative, based solely on this completely arbitrary, algebraic transformational definition. Otherwise, we tacitly assume what is incompatible on its face, the two postulates, and the former proposition is the exact path Albert followed after the appearance of the 1905 paper, when Planck and others pointed out that the "theory of relativity" was not Albert's theory, but Lorentz' theory. After Albert's rise to fame in the early 1920's, he avoided the subject.
Of course, the 1905 paper itself primes the reader to accept the "two postulate" non sequitur disguise for Lorentz' 1904 publication, and states,
"The length to be discovered in the case of procedure b), which we want to call 'the length of the (moving) rod in the resting system', we will determine on the basis of our two principles and find that it differs from l.
The kinematics in general use tacitly takes for granted that the lengths determined by both of the stated procedures are the exactly same, or, in other words, that a moving rigid body in the epoch of time t is, in geometrical respects, an exact substitute for the same body, when it rests in a fixed position."
In other words, we are tacitly asked to hypothesize that moving bodies change length, and then are asked to wait to see by which factor, if we forecast the effect and assume the conclusion as a premise, which allows us to introduce arbitrary, and unwarranted constants and proportionality factors to an incompatible, definitional algebraic transformation.
The Einsteins knew Lorentz' formulation for length contraction before working on their 1905 paper. Their claim regarding kinematics and length invariance was not true, and they knew that it was not true. Why didn't they simply state the truth, which they knew at the time, that, "although traditional Newtonian kinematics employs a geometry in which the length of moving spaces are invariant in reference systems in rectilinear uniform motion, FitzGerald, Larmor, Lorentz have presented a new geometry in which moving "rigid" bodies are not invariant, in order to account for the interpretation that the measurement of light speed is invariant"? The Einsteins knew that this was the case, and their formulation of the same theory turns logic on its head. They drove a square peg into a round hole and put their names to what was not theirs. Why did they misrepresent the facts, which facts were known to them, if not to assume credit for that which was not theirs? Their actions were petty. What is amazing is that their positivistic celebration of ignorance and irrationality, perpetrated to "hide their sources", became enshrined. It demonstrates the danger of hero worship and the irrational human game of follow the leader--right off the face of a cliff.
Albert claimed priority over Lorentz in 1907 by stating that Position-Time, "Ortzeit" was merely Time. Of course, countless persons of all recorded ages denied absolute time, and there is no priority to be had in doing so in 1905! The Einsteins' definition of time is no different from Lorentz', other than semantically--it is the definitional first order transformation disguised as a light clock, which pseudo-clock system is shown to be anisotropic, though it is absurdly defined to be isotropic. Poincaré had denied absolute time before Albert and had proposed the impossible to perform clock synchronization method Albert aped, and Albert had read his work on relativity, but did not cite it in the 1905 paper, or the 1907 paper, or the 1912 paper, or the 1916 paper. . . .
* * *
As explained above, the "principle of relativity" set forth in the "first postulate" is a restatement of Newton's laws for rectilinear uniform motion of translation relative to Newtonian absolute space, as stated in Newton's infamous Fifth Corollary. Since the Einsteins' theory employs "uniform motions" and "rest", the "principle of relativity" is simply a redundant statement of Newtonian absolutism based on an absolute substratum--and Albert glorified this fact. Absolutism does not exclude relations, but true relativism, not the pseudo-relativism of the Einsteins, true relativism excludes absolutes.
It is important to realize that the Einsteins' statement of the principle of relativity does not refer to bodies in a state of rest, but, rather, it is exclusively and expressly a statement which refers to bodies in uniform motion, and is never applied to the "resting system", as the laws of Maxwell are a definitional and understood condition in resting space. The "principle of relativity" is the relational aspect of the Einsteins' absolutism, just as it was the relational aspect to Newton's absolutism--both are the relational aspect of: absolute space, the laws of inertia, and the absolute nature of Nature's laws. Mileva and Albert were employing the Newtonian conception of uniform motion, though they never expressly state the motion be inertial, for they had no need to do so, since rectilinear, uniform motion relative to absolute space represents the circular definition of inertial motion. The "second postulate", the light postulate was simply a statement that Maxwell's dynamic equations for absolute space, the aether, are assumed to be valid.
The "first postulate" refers exclusively to "moving systems", or rigid material bodies in absolute, uniform motion, hence the title of the work, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper). The terminology of "resting system" and "moving systems" was conventional, and was the standard language of the day, understood by all physicists of the time, even those who disagreed with it, to mean systems of coordinates in absolute rest and absolute motion. Those who sought to distinguish space as relative, or "rest", as rest relative to a moving system, were compelled to so specify, and did. The Einsteins neither made, nor implied, any such distinction.
The "second postulate" refers only to the "resting system", or rigid material bodies at absolute rest, and is the system in which the fundamental Maxwell-Hertz-Lorentz equations for absolute rest have their foundational meaning. The second postulate was meant to say that Maxwell's dynamic equations for absolute space are valid, and that is all it was meant to say. The second postulate expresses the sentiments of Max Abraham, who wrote in 1904,
"The electromagnetic theory addresses the absolute motion of light, which light issues forth in every direction with the same velocity (c)"
"Die elektromagnetische Theorie spricht von einer absoluten Bewegung des Lichtes, die nach jeder Richtung hin mit derselben Geschwindigkeit (c) erfolgt"52
That the Einsteins intended their "resting system" to signify Maxwell's absolute space is further evinced by their statement,
"These two assumptions are sufficient in order to arrive at a simple and consistent electrodynamics of moving bodies, taking as a basis Maxwell's theory for resting bodies."
Maxwell formalized the absolute velocity of light as a dynamic process in the aether. The absolute velocity of light was stated numerous times in history, for example by Cassini and Roemer (ca. 1676) and Bradley (ca. 1729). W. Stanley Jevons wrote in the 1870's,
"In a first subclass we may place the velocity of light or heat undulations, the numbers expressing the relation between the lengths of undulations, and the rapidity of the undulations, these numbers depending only on the properties of the ethereal medium, and being probably the same in all parts of the universe."53
In 1922, Albert defined the second postulate as occurring exclusively in absolute space,
"I had a chance to read Lorentz's monograph of 1895. He discussed and solved completely the problem of electrodynamics within the first [order of] approximation, namely neglecting terms of orders higher than v / c, where v is the velocity of a moving body and c is the velocity of light. Then I tried to discuss the Fizeau experiment on the assumption that the Lorentz equations for electrons should hold in the frame of reference of the moving body as well as in the frame of reference of the vacuum as originally discussed by Lorentz. At that time I firmly believed that the electrodynamic equations of Maxwell and Lorentz were correct. Furthermore, the assumption that these equations should hold in the reference frame of the moving body leads to the concept of the invariance of the velocity of light, which, however, contradicts the addition rule of velocities in mechanics."54
Several of Albert's essential beliefs are evident in this statement. He asserts that the vacuum, Lorentz' absolute space, represents a privileged frame. It is clear that Albert viewed the invariance of light between frames as different from the second postulate, which was exclusively the constancy of light speed in the privileged reference frame of the vacuum. Moving frames are expressed as frames of reference in absolute motion with respect to the privileged frame of the vacuum. The principle of relativity is a corollary, and it contradicts the modern misinterpretation of the second postulate (the assertion that light speed is finite, invariant, and isotropic between relatively moving inertial systems) without further hypotheses, i.e., length contraction, time dilatation and relative simultaneity.
When Albert stated that the principle of relativity only apparently contradicted the light "postulate", it was clear that he was admitting that the principle of relativity was a corollary, not a postulate, and that it, as well as the light "postulate", were corollaries to hypothesized Lorentz geometry.
Philipp Frank makes clear that Albert simply disguised Lorentz' theory positivistically, without changing it,
"This law [***] may be called the relativity principle of mechanistic physics. It is a deduction from the Newtonian laws of motion and deals only with relative motions and not, as Newton's laws proper, with absolute motion. In this form it is a positive assertion, but it can also be formulated in a negative way, thus: It is impossible by means of experiments such as those described above to differentiate one inertial system from another. [***] Besides this 'principle of relativity,' Einstein needed a second principle dealing with the interaction of light and motion. He investigated the influence of the motion of the source of light on the velocity of light emitted by it. From the standpoint of the ether theory, it is self-evident that it makes no difference whether or not the source of light moves; light considered as mechanical vibration in the ether is propagated with a constant velocity with respect to the ether. [***] Dropping the ether theory of light, Einstein had to reformulate this law into a statement about observable facts. There is one system of reference, F (the fundamental system), with respect to which light is propagated with a specific speed, c. No matter with what velocity the light source moves with respect to the fundamental system (F), the light emitted is propagated with the same specific velocity (c) relative to F. This statement is usually called the 'principal [sic] of the of the constancy of the speed of light.'"55
Calling the "aether" the "fundamental system" or the "resting system" is a positivistic distinction in words, without a difference. One can dispute the properties of the aether, or choose to ignore them, but it is still the aether which is under discussion. Since the principle of relativity is a deduction, it cannot rationally be asserted as a "postulate". Believing (sometime deceiving) that "less is more", does not make "less" original.
Anton Reiser also referred to the principle of relativity as being a "conclusion", and not a postulate,
"Conclusions, of the most practical importance to further research, which the theory of relativity has yielded, are [***] (3) Natural laws do not change their form in the transition from one coördinate system to another similarly in movement."56
It is rare indeed, that a "relativist" actually quotes the Einsteins' express statement of the principle of relativity, or the express light "postulate". Why is that? Were the Einsteins so inarticulate, or are their assertions so obviously Newtonian absolutism?
The modern reader may be deluded and believe that since the modern view holds that uniform motion is purely relative, with space-time being an absolute, without a privileged frame of reference, that this is what the 1905 paper expressed, but it clearly is not the case. The context was Newton's Fifth Corollary, and the motion expressed is not purely relative. Uniform motion in the 1905 paper is absolute, unaccelerated motion relative to resting space.
J. H. Jeans wrote in 1907,
"Newton believed it to be possible to imagine a frame of reference actually fixed in space, and intended all motion to be measured relatively to this frame. Thus Newton's laws of motion apply to motion referred to axes fixed in space".57
Newton's Fifth Corollary extends this principle to render equivalent the laws of motion of systems of reference, measurements made by rigid material bodies, in uniform motion through absolute space. This concept of the principle of relativity was common knowledge long before the Twentieth Century, and was known to Copernicus, Galileo and was expressed rigorously by Huygens.
The principle of relativity does not state, or imply, that light speed is an invariant, rather it contradicts said claim. The laws of electrodynamics, just as the laws of mechanics, would still be the same in all inertial systems, if light speed were not an invariant. One would simply apply an Euclidean addition of velocities instead of Poincaré's, which would not represent the detection of absolute space, other than if the detection of the frame of light propagation were artificially defined as the detection of absolute space, which definition compels the acceptance of absolute space and the light medium, the aether.
In fact, taking light speed as a definitional invariant renders the laws of electrodynamics dissimilar, for we are compelled to pretend that an anisotropic clock is an isotropic clock, and to pretend that this anisotropic clock, light, defines simultaneity as though it were an isotropic clock, and there is nothing more dissimilar between relatively moving frames than relative simultaneity, for it creates different states of being and becoming, different universes, which are in no sense identities. Metaphysically pretending that there is a mathematical substratum, a quadri-dimensional manifold absolute world uniting these distinct universes, denies becoming--denies motion, and rests upon arbitrary human rules and Gestalt linkages. The absolute world of space-time of nothing-moving is a religious belief, and not a scientific assertion. Anton Reiser put it thusly, essentially reiterating the words of Joseph Larmor from the year 1900,
"The universe becomes a four-dimensional continuum in the time-space sense of Minkowski. Physical occurrences are now represented by three spatial coördinates as well as by one time coördinate, or in other words, there is no Becoming, only Being."58
One is left to wonder how the "universe BECOMES a four-dimensional continuum", if there is no "BECOMING". "Being and becoming" are states of awareness. If we remove our anthropomorphic view of Nature, we are left without "being or becoming", not one as opposed to the other.
Albert, after the fashion of Poincaré, later stated that the principle of relativity also excluded the detection of absolute space by means of the addition of velocities with respect to light propagation--that Maxwell's equations hold in a moving system with equal validity to the resting system. Why, in the modern theory, does light speed form the basis for the detection of absolute space, if light speed is not an absolute velocity?
Boscovich, who called the principle of relativity, the "principle of invariance"59 (much like Minkowski, who would, much later, call the principle of relativity the "postulate of the absolute world"), stated that moving bodies contract relative to their resting geometric forms. Henry Augustus Rowlands clearly stated the principle of relativity, with its implication of Lorentz invariance, in 1899, in the address herein reprinted. J. D. Everett60 declared that space was a uniform translation, and not absolute, as early as 1883, soon after the Michelson experiment's negative result.
The Einsteins lagged behind in their thinking, maintaining Lorentzian dogma long after the innovations of Ludwig Lange and his "inertial system" of 1885. It was Poincaré who led the way, Jakob Laub and Minkowski, then, forever did away with absolute space in the special theory of relativity, aping Poincaré, and framing Albert and Mileva works in Poincaré's image--except in Albert's mind. Gehrcke, in a critique of the lack of originality in Minkowski's assertions, brought the "Einsteinian" Relativist's attention to the fact that it was Ludwig Lange, in 1885, who was the innovator of the concept of the "inertial system" as the uniform translation of space-time, without a privileged frame, and not Minkowski, nor Albert Einstein. Only after this critique do we find the term "inertial system" appearing in the "Einsteinian" relativistic literature. The real relativists were in what one might refer to as the "Mach School of Relativism", and they were working on a general theory to account for gravitation, rotations and all accelerations long before the "Einsteinian Absolutists" caught on via their critics.
Minkowski provides us with evidence of the contemporary historical context of the 1905 paper, as it was intended, and as it was understood by one of the premier mathematician-physicists of the day. Systems in uniform motion through absolute space were in that era (ca. 1905) understood as transformations of the fundamental equations of absolute space. The Einsteins' paper avers that reference frames, expressly, rigid material bodies, are the means of measurement for observers, and the paper maintains the standard, Newtonian view of absolute space, with the only distinction being that moving, rigid bodies are not of invariant length, the hypothesized result being that moving, in the absolute sense, rigid bodies contract, and moving, in the absolute sense, clocks slow in their rate of change, and further that, if one pretends that the anisotropic clock of light is isotropic, then simultaneity is relative, which accounts for the contraction and dilatation, or is it vice versa? There is no telling, for it is a Petitio Principii theory!
The Einsteins' formulation is in no way different from Lorentz' formulation of moving systems of reference, as opposed to axes fixed in space, except for the single statement that a resting aether is superfluous to the formulation, which assertion Lucretius, Galileo, Newton, Mill, Clifford, Ostwald, Blavatsky, Larmor, Drude, Cohn, Bucherer, Poincaré (etc., etc., etc.), had long since made.
However, the 1905 paper has since been misinterpreted to confuse the variable means of measurement of absolute space with the subsequently proposed relativity of space itself, and this is done in order to award priority to Albert Einstein, which he does not deserve. The general tone of the Lorentzian theoretical physicists' viewpoint ca. 1900 was that space and time are relative when measured, but that Maxwell's equations relate to a medium at rest. Though the 1905 paper deals with the kinematics of relative motion, and measurements made with moving bodies, moving in the absolute sense, it does not propose the relativity of space, but the artificial, definitional relativity of simultaneity. Furthermore, though the Einsteins' are often interpreted as employing the "first postulate" as if it stated that "the measured velocity of light is the same in all coordinate systems in uniform motion", it makes no such statement. The "first postulate" statement does not express this sentiment, and if it did, the founding hypothesis would beg the question of the conclusion of the theory, and void its scientific value. The first postulate states that the laws in systems in uniform motion are the same, and, as such, absolute space holds no talismanic properties with regard to human laws of electrodynamics. The 1905 paper's formulation of the conclusions to be drawn from the principle of relativity simply assert, given the definition of the absolute velocity of light in the second postulate,
"that the concept of absolute rest corresponds to no characteristic properties of the phenomena not just in mechanics, but also in electrodynamics",
not that absolute space does not exist, nor that absolute rest is undetectable, per se. Since this principle of relativity does not conflict with Newton's light theory, why should it conflict with Lorentz'? Albert maintained throughout that Lorentz' theory was in conflict with the principle of relativity. Albert considered the velocity of light absolute.
The 1905 paper grossly blunders by not addressing accelerations and rotations with respect to the principle of relativity, and in this sense, Poincaré, who did not ignore these issues, was the more brilliant mind and studied scientist. After Poincaré published his thoughts in this area, the subject subsequently arose in Albert's writings, as well.
Since space and time are continuous, the human means of mapping relations through material apparatus cannot and does not render space nor time relative, rather, it merely alters our conceptualization of velocities. Newton was well aware of this fact, and believed it justified his absolutism.
All of Albert's papers up until the general theory in 1915, hold to the premise of absolutely resting space, in which Maxwell's dynamic equations are fundamental. Laub came close to shattering this conception in 1907, but failed to take the crucial step toward denying absolute space, he just reiterated more clearly that absolute space evinced no unique properties, but clearly Laub understood the basic premise of the "inertial system". It was Ludwig Lange, then later Poincaré, and following his lead, Minkowski, who adopted the assumption that space is a uniform translation, but never with a privileged frame of reference, rather possessing absolute directions and absolute, forceless motions. Albert rejected Minkowski's views, until many pointed out to him that they were essential to a formulation of a general theory of the relativity of accelerated motion.
Many point to irrational flaws, the so-called "paradoxes", regarding variables in the 1905 paper, which are, in fact, contradictions and mutual exclusions. There are, however, numerous other irrational flaws in the paper, many of which relate to the Einsteins' having presumed the conclusion of the theory in its premises.
The "first postulate" states that c +/- v must be accounted for in the processing of information, the generation of conceptual "velocity", for c is the velocity of light in absolute space, and v is the uniform motion of bodies through space. The 1905 paper contends that c +/- v is an observational fact. The Newtonian equations for rectilinear uniform motions of translation cannot exist without absolute motion, for two systems in uniform motion with respect to each other are not axiomatically inertial--in fact, they never are inertial. Newton's laws require an absolute space, a fantasy, as the substratum for defining rectilinear uniform motion, rest and force, lest the definitions of the terms become circular and meaningless. Newton's first law is a definition of force, rendered as a consequence of the assumption of absolute rest and absolute motion. Conducting empirical tests for inertial motion does not obviate the fact that inertial motion is a circularly defined concept, rather the necessity for such tests confirms it.
It must be noted that the equations of Newtonian mechanics take the same form in systems in rectilinear uniform motion relative to absolute space, as they do in absolute space itself. However, there is no such rectilinear uniform motion, without absolute space as a substratum, most especially when the aether is denied. A system in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics are valid can only axiomatically be assumed to be a system at absolute rest, for a moving system can only be known to be inertial through experiment, and cannot, a prior, be assumed to be inertial, as can an absolutely resting system. In the 1905 paper, the moving system required an explicit definition. It was a "resting system" put into uniform motion relative to empty space. It could not simply be a "moving system", per se, for such a system would not axiomatically "hold" to Newton's equations of inertia, though a "resting system" is of its nature an inertial system, and requires no further explication.
The necessary distinction between types of conceptualized motion is clear in the otherwise artificial distinction drawn between rotations and rest. Why would centrifugal forces appear in a rotation, if there were no absolute space, given that the Einsteins, like Newton, define inertia as a force of inert space and inert matter? Newtonian mechanics are the mechanics of absolute space. The only system in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics are axiomatically valid, without taking account of forces (accelerations), is in a system resting in absolute space, by Newton's express definitions. Pure relativity theory would, a priori, state that there is no basis for inertia in space, but only in relation, as Mach contended. However, experiment would then contradict the entire premise of the inertial frame, for no rectilinear uniform motion has yet been observed, and those motions taken to be ideally inertial by approximation, do not reveal Euclidean spaces which obey Newton's laws of inertia.
The traditional approach was to assume that the so-called "fixed stars" provide an approximate reference for the "resting system", and it was assumed that a body at rest in empty space would maintain its position with respect to these "fixed stars", unless acted upon by a force, and a body so set into motion by a force would maintain rectilinear uniform motion of translation, unless acted upon by another, or a constant, force, which is, of course, a circular, and therefore, meaningless definition of inertia.
It is nonsensical to view inertial motion as the absence of force. If no force were acting on a resting body, and no force were acting on a uniformly moving body, the two would be in mutual rest. Since inertia is a sum of "forces", not the absence of force, it is absurd to speak of uniform motions with respect to the sum of forces acting on a given body without referring to a medium. Mach's principle is just more words for Newton's empty principle of inertia, unless the "fields of force" are physical states of a medium, and the body itself is the relation of these fields in the medium, the universe.
The Einsteins' 1905 paper sets out to define time, unabashedly aping Poincaré. Poincaré, however, made a fundamental rational error not made by Ludwig Lange. Poincaré asserted that the one-way measurement of light speed required a means of measuring time, which we do not possess, and, therefore, time must be defined by the round trip motion of a light clock, which is definitionally presumed to be isotropic. Lange, and after him, MacGregor, knew better. Since Poincaré compelled that his relativity theory occur in an inertial system, time was already defined as the uniform, inertial motion of any body, and any such uniform motion is a perfect, though anisotropic, clock, whereby equal spaces are traversed in equal times for a given frame of reference, by definition. The inertial system, itself, is the uniform translation of motion of fundamental, continuous space, or the aether, in which light itself is a uniform, rectilinear translatory motion. Poincaré was in fact, despite his myths, restricted to using light as a one way measure of time for moving systems, since light is a uniform motion of translation, but was prohibited from employing it as though it were an isotropic clock, and amazingly, after he provided the rational argument why this is so, for one moves toward light in one direction, and away, the other, he then turned logic on its head and demanded that simultaneity be considered relative, instead of following his admission that light is an anisotropic clock to its rational conclusion. He did so by pretending that light speed is invariant between inertial systems in relative motion to each other, which was a religious belief, not a scientific fact. As Poincaré stated in 1904,
"Imagine two observers who wish to adjust their watches by optical signals; they exchange signals, but as they know that the transmission of light is not instantaneous, they take care to cross them.
When the station B perceives the signal from the station A, its clock should not mark the same hour as that of the station A at the moment of sending the signal, but this hour augmented by a constant representing the duration of the transmission. Suppose, for example, that the station A sends its signal when its clock marks the hour o, and that the station B perceives it when its clock marks the hour t. The clocks are adjusted if the slowness equal to t represents the duration of the transmission, and to verify it, the station B sends in its turn a signal when its clock marks o; then the station A should perceive it when its clock marks t. The timepieces are then adjusted. And in fact, they mark the same hour at the same physical instant, but on one condition, which is that the two stations are fixed. In the contrary case the duration of the transmission will not be the same in the two senses, since the station A, for example, moves forward to meet the optical perturbation emanating from B, while the station B flies away before the perturbation emanating from A. The watches adjusted in that manner do not mark, therefore, the true time, they mark what one may call the local time, so that one of them goes slow on the other. It matters little since we have no means of perceiving it. All the phenomena which happen at A, for example, will be late, but all will be equally so, and the observer who ascertains them will not perceive it since his watch is slow; so as the principle of relativity would have it, he will have no means of knowing whether he is at rest or in absolute motion."
The Einsteins' repeated these words in their 1905 paper, Part I, Sec. 1, without mentioning Poincaré's name--Albert never acknowledged that this method was Poincaré's, and not his.
Since, as has been shown, the two postulates yield no theory, are redundant to each other, or mutually exclusive, and were unoriginal, from whence comes the Lorentz Transformation in the Einsteins' 1905 paper? The Lorentz Trasformation arises in the 1905 paper from Poincaré's fallacy of light isotropy as a clock, which presupposes length contraction and time dilatation as second order effects, and relative simultaneity as a first order definitional absurdity.
In Part I, Section 3, of the Einsteins' 1905 paper, it states,
"To every system of values x, y, z, t, which completely determines the position and time of an event in the resting system, appertains a system of values [xi], [eta], [zeta], [tau] determining that event relatively to the system k, and finding the system of equations connecting these magnitudes is the problem which must now be solved.
It is clear to begin with, that the equations must be linear, due to the properties of homogeneity, which we attribute to space and time.
If we set x' = x - vt, then it is evident, that a point resting in system k attains a fixed system of values x', y, z, independent of time. First of all, we ascertain [tau] as a function of x', y, z, and t. Toward this end, we have to express in equations that [tau] is nothing but the sum total of the readings of clocks resting in system k, which have been rendered synchronous according to the rule given in Sec. 1.
If a ray of light is sent from the origin of system k at the time [tau]0 along the X-axis to x', and is reflected from there at the time [tau]1 toward the origin of the coordinates, where it arrives at the time [tau]2, then it must be that:
1/2 ( [tau]0 + [tau]2 ) = [tau]1
or, by one's subjoining the arguments of the function [tau] and bringing to bear the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in the resting system:
it follows, if one selects infinitesimal x', that:
It is noteworthy, that we could have selected any other point as the starting-point of the ray of light instead of the origin of the coordinates, and, therefore, the equation just obtained is valid for all values of x', y, z.
analogous consideration--applied to the Y- and
if one considers that light always propagates along these axes with the
velocity ( c^2 -
as observed from the resting system:
From these equations. . . ."
Now, it is clear that the Einsteins' formulation is nothing other than Poincaré's, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the two postulates. Neither postulate states that c' = c. Neither postulate states that there are three sets of coordinates: one at rest, one in motion, and one artificially wedged in between absolute rest and uniform motion, or:
x, y, z, t
[xi], [eta], [zeta], [tau]
x', y, z, [tau],
x' = x - vt
and [tau] is the compulsory delusion that anisotropic light speed is an isotropic clock. Not only is this an obvious parroting of Poincaré, it is the tacit assumption of length contraction and time dilatation in the utterly deceptive misrepresentation that [tau]1 is an isotropic, Euclidean clock measurement valid for both the resting and the moving frames, as if anisotropic time represents absolute simultaneity, when it is in fact the average of an anisotropic motion, the round trip of light in a frame of reference in motion with respect to the medium of light propagation. Constants and proportionality factors must be artificially factored with the variables of measured length and time in order to arrive at a second order transformation, which renders light speed invariant. This is not a derivation, but a circular argument, which begs the question of the conclusion through the use of nebulous algebraic constants, which are already tacitly understood before being placed in the equations.
In fact, as the Einsteins' formulation itself reveals,
c' = c +/- v,
Since the Einsteins' aping of Poincaré cannot represent the relativization of space or time, for it relies upon absolute velocity, and, further since round trip light propagation is an anisotropic motion between inertial systems in relative motion--since light is an anisotropic clock, it ought to be easy demonstrate the internal inconsistencies of the Einsteins' formulation of Lorentz' theory, and it is.
I return to the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is not a test of the special theory of relativity, and amend it per Arthur Schuster's requirements,61 so as to make it become a test of Lorentz' theory of a resting aether and the Einsteins' equivalent theory of the absolute velocity of light in vacuo, as well as Newton's corpuscular theory, and the more modern, Poincaré special theory of relativity.
In the original Michelson-Morley experiment, it was supposed that the aether rested in absolute space, and that the Earth moved through the resting aether. Michelson believed that when he had set the interference fringe pattern on his interferometer, rotating the apparatus would cause each axis to accelerate in the aether wind. The axis, which was facing the aether wind, would rotate out of that position, such that its length had zero velocity with respect to the aether. The axis, which initially had no velocity along its length, would accelerate upon rotation to the full velocity of the Earth's motion with respect to the aether.
Since the apparatus was initially set to render simultaneous the return of both pencils of light to the screen, rotating the axes, giving them the impulse to contrary accelerations, to contrary velocities in the aether wind, should have caused the interference pattern to shift. This assumes that the two axes of the interferometer remain perfectly rigid at all times during which readings were taken.
As I have tried to explain, a body which is put into motion with respect to its former state, is no longer, in any sense, the "same body". Lorentz argued that Michelson's experiment was not a valid test for the hypothetical relative motion of the earth through the aether, on the grounds that, inter alia, accelerated bodies contract, which factors make it impossible to register the addition of velocities with respect to light propagation through the means Michelson employed. The Einsteins avowed that the vacuum evinced no characteristic properties in optics, in systems of reference, in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics are valid, and, therefore, Michelson's experiment could not, in principle, detect an addition of velocities with respect to light.
In terms of Newton's corpuscular theory of light, Michelson's experiment records nothing. It is no more a detector of absolute motion, than a ping pong game on board a ship is a measure of the vessel's velocity with respect to the sea.
However, both Lorentz' and the Einsteins' theories effectively presuppose an aether wind in the form of c +/- v, and their theories predict that the "aether wind" is observable, though not by means of the Michelson experiment. Since the "aether wind" is detectable, space, time and simultaneity are not relative, in either theory. Rather, as even the ancients knew, measurement is relational, and space, time, and simultaneity are the immutable, abstract, conceptualized substratum for visualizing physical reality.
In order to detect the "aether wind", not in reality, but in the precepts of the special theory of relativity, one need only conduct a thought experiment suggested by Arthur Schuster.61 Remove from the Michelson experiment its rigid attachments and its rotation. Instead, in the abstract space of an inertial system K, allow each component of the interferometer to remain detached from the others. Adjust the instrument until the desired interference fringe pattern is achieved.
Please keep two things in mind. One, that light is an anisotropic round trip motion between inertial systems in relative motion to each other. It is the very anisotropy of light speed, which renders its measured value isotropic, in inertial systems, in the special theory of relativity, with its Lorentz transformation. If light were truly assumed to be isotropic in all inertial systems, given the Lorentz transformation, light speed would be measured to be anisotropic. Two, that all inertial systems, and light, itself, are uniform rectilinear translations of the aether--vacuum. As such, time is defined by any relative motion between inertial systems, which is to say, time is defined by all inertial motions--as circularly defined--as equal spaces traversed in equal times--uniform motions.
Apply individual accelerative forces to each individual component of the interferometer. Remember that the individual components are not rigidly attached to each other. Mete out the forces such that the relevant surfaces of the interferometer remain at relative rest, as observed by observers resting relative to K, throughout the acceleration of the interferometer.
The accelerated interferometer forms an independent system, system k. Though the relevant surfaces of the system k remain at relative rest, though accelerating, as observed by observers who rest relative to inertial system K, the surfaces appear to separate from each other, as observed by observers co-moving with system k, due to the kinematic contraction of their form. Though it appears to observers co-moving with system k that the individual components of the interferometer are accelerating away from each other, the observers at rest relative to k cannot determine which component is forced from which other component, during acceleration.
Cease the application of forces to the interferometer, such that the relevant surfaces of it remain in relative rest, as observed by all inertial observers. System k is now understood to be an inertial system, moving with respect to inertial system K.
Since both Lorentz' and the Einsteins' theories avow that the velocity of light relative to the inertially moving interferometer, as determined by observers at rest relative to system K, is c +/- v, where celeritas is the absolute velocity of light, and v is the relative velocity of translation of the interferometer, as measured by observers resting relative to system K, the interferometer will record a shift in the interference bands, and thereby detect the aether wind, for light's motion, as well as that of each inertial system, is a uniform, rectilinear translation of space--the aether.
Now, speaking in terms of Lorentz' and the Einsteins' theories, the individual parts of the interferometer undergo a Lorentz transformation, and not a Galilean transformation, and, therefore, the measured speed of light remains invariant in all inertial systems--even though the aether wind has been detected. As such, we see that the Einsteins' principle of relativity is a fallacy, for the concept absolute space does evince characteristic properties, that of a unique frame of the absolute velocity of light, manifest in the detection of the aether wind, to name but one such characteristic property. . . . Of course, the precept that the velocity of light relative to its medium is an absolute velocity, is a religious concept, and not a scientific one. Furthermore, detecting the aether wind does not, of necessity, map the medium, and a thorough analysis of the Einsteins' principle of relativity, in this context, quickly becomes an argument over semantics and the epistemology of positive and negative assertions.
The predictions of the same thought experiment, interpreted pursuant to the precepts of Newtonian theory, results in no effect. Pursuant to the dragged aether theory, there ought to be a detection of the aether wind.
We see that it is not space, time, or simultaneity, which are relative in the special theory of relativity, but the variables of material bodies in the form of mutable, arbitrarily "synchronized" clocks, mutable measuring rods, and mutable (self-contradictory) definitions of simultaneity, for, if space were relative, no interferometer could detect the aether wind, given the other absurd notions of the theory, such as the artifice that the detection of an aether wind equates to the detection of absolute space. We further note that "space" and "time", when equated to light propagation, are not reciprocally dependant upon observation, but exist independently of measurement, and, viz. my thought experiment, must be Euclidean if the Lorentz-Einstein theory is reasonable.
It is significant to note that measured light speed is predicted to remain invariant for co-moving observers, pursuant to the Lorentz Transformation, but that the experiment still predicts (for the Lorentz-Einstein theory) a positive result for the detection of the aether wind. Pursuant to the theory, observers at rest with respect to the interferometer will account for the apparent separation of its components along the axis of its motion, as an effect of their acceleration, knowing that they have contracted. Their beliefs are justified, for all inertial systems are uniform translations of the aether, and, therefore, the fact that the components have remained at relative rest while accelerating through K, as observed by those at rest with respect to K, evinces that the apparatus' absolute velocity has changed and that it is this change in absolute velocity, which would account for the predicted positive result of the experiment, given the arbitrary nature of position-time in the theories. The reciprocity of rigid bodies is shown to be a delusion, unrelated to continuous space and time, with their being no absolute geometric form to rest, but rather, with bodies being affected by the physical states in which they are manifest.
Another thought experiment demonstrates most dramatically that it is not space, per se, which is relative in the special theory of relativity, but only the variable means of measurement, and the entirely artificial and self-contradictory definition of simultaneity. In inertial system K, or in the resting frame of space itself, the so-called "vacuum", place three objects together, but leave them unattached. Take a long, rigid rod, R, and at each of its ends, points a and b, place two tiny spheres, spheres A and B. As in the interferometer experiment, use independent forces on each body to accelerate each through K with a like acceleration in a common direction, such that their centers of mass remain at relative rest as observed by observers at rest relative to K. The special theory of relativity predicts that the rod will contract and points a and b will withdraw from spheres A and B.
The Einsteins' 1905 paper in Part I, Section 3, compels that an acceleration of rods, which are identical in all respects, take place in order to establish reciprocity. On its face, the Einsteins' mandate is irrational, for two objects which are in all respects identical, are one object, but, more significantly, no "rigid" rod exists, and if it did it would not contract, for it would be rigid, and even if it were able to contract and yet be rigid--if the Petitio Principii definition of "relative simultaneity" were valid instead of being the fallacy which it is, it would not represent reciprocity, for it had contracted and become unlike its twin, and even beyond these absurdities (supposedly explained via relative simultaneity, though not explained, as the definition is circular, and we do not and cannot measure through light synchronization) reciprocity is disproven by the rod and spheres thought experiment stated above, which evinces that space is indifferent to the motions of bodies, and that the proposed FitzGerald contraction is a dynamic effect, not a kinematic "perspective" of measurement. Stating that a method of measurement, which method is never performed, is the cause of length contraction, is equivalent to stating that observing light is the cause of light. It is yet another fallacy of the special theory of relativity. If we ever come to observe reciprocal length contraction, it will then be a real thing caused of itself, not a "perspective" resulting from a "method" of measurement, which "method" is impossible to perform.
One must interpret the Einsteins' paper to mean that each system of reference, in inertial relative motion, is to be treated, mathematically, with respect to Maxwell's equations, as if it were at rest relative to the medium. However, this view is contradicted by the face of the 1905 paper, as said interpretation contradicts the mandate that the equations of Newtonian mechanics be valid, and, further, in that it would render the two postulates redundant.
The equations of mechanics compel that we adopt c +/- v when formulating the laws of electrodynamics and optics, for the equations of mechanics account for relative motion in an Euclidean fashion. The 1905 paper employs c +/- v. Systems of coordinates which do not transform according to Galilean geometry, do not conform to the equations of Newtonian mechanics. Therefore, the "first postulate" is proven false, as Maxwell's equations are not expressed as if there were no c +/- v for systems in relative motion, but rather they are an expression of Galilean geometry for the transformations of systems. The purpose of the 1905 paper is to demonstrate how the measured velocity of light does not obey the Galilean transformation, by hypothesizing length contraction, time dilatation and relative simultaneity. The velocity of light is still absolute in the 1905 paper, as expressly stated in the "second postulate", but it is also measured to be invariant, due to the kinematic effects on moving bodies--in precisely the same geometric fashion as in Lorentz.
The Einsteins blundered and stated yet another mutually exclusive proposition, by demanding that Newtonian mechanics be valid, then compelling that Newtonian mechanics be abandoned, in exchange for Poincaré's
"entirely new mechanics, which would be, above all, characterised by this fact, that no velocity could surpass that of light, any more than any temperature could fall below the zero absolute, because bodies would oppose an increasing inertia to the causes, which would tend to accelerate their motion; and this inertia would become infinite when one approached the velocity of light."
One should note here, that a body which cannot be accelerated by any force, no matter how great, is moving at an observable, absolute rate, pursuant to the theory, as is light. Not knowing which frame is at rest with respect to this absolute velocity, does not obviate the alleged absolute nature, their absolute direction and their absolute speed, of such motions. That another body can be moving in an inertial frame away from such an absolutely nearly-luminally moving body, evinces that Lorentz' theory comes closer to being internally consistent, than does Poincaré's, for with Lorentz motions are omnidirectionally being related to an aether.
We have Mileva and Albert proclaiming in 1905 that,
"One immediately sees, that this result is also still valid if the clock moves in an arbitrary, polygonal line from A to B, and, of course, if the points A and B coincide.
If one assumes that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, then one obtains the proposition: If at A there are two synchronously running clocks and one moves one of the clocks in a closed curve with a constant velocity, until it again arrives back at A, which lasts for t seconds, then the latter clock upon its arrival at A runs 1/2 t (v / c)^2 seconds slow in comparison with the unmoved clock. Therefore, one concludes that a balance-clock located at the equator must run more slowly by a very small amount, than a clock of exactly the same construction located at one of the Earth's poles, ceteris paribus."
The Einsteins expressly state that a clock which is resting records the accurate, absolute time of travel, and that a moving clock runs slow. There are the absolute time of the journey, the clock which has remained at rest, and the traveled clock. The Einsteins' statement quoted above again proves that the "resting system" referred to in the 1905 paper, is one at absolute rest. The Einsteins' notion that the motion of the equator with respect to a pole is a curved motion refers that motion to absolute space, a privileged frame, as the relative "motion" of equator and pole is one of rest--zero. The notion that clocks would show a difference of time between equator and pole is one: that the absolute motion at the equator must, of necessity, be greater than the absolute motion of the pole; and further that time dilatation is an absolute effect, and not a reciprocal, relative effect of an impossible measurement procedure. The Einsteins' paper is, therefore, a far more primitive understanding of relativistic concepts than Poincaré's prior work, and the Einsteins' principle of relativity is shown to be a fallacy, for the concept of absolute rest does indeed, in their theory, correspond to characteristic properties of the phenomena in electrodynamics.
Poincaré understood the paradox that inertial motion compels absolute space and motion, but that the principle of relativity made it impossible to detect absolute rest, while said selfsame principle compels absolute directions and motion. Poincaré had the insight to see that empirical observation led to contradictions in classical mechanics and that quandary called for a new mechanics. Poincaré also acknowledged that "time of position" is an artifice, arrived at definitionally--circularly, and is an artificial definition of abstract position, not relative or absolute simultaneity.
The Einsteins, on the other hand, took the assumption of absolute rest as the fundamental assumption of their theory--their point of departure. They naïvely followed Newtonian mythology, and tweaked it by postulating length contraction, time dilatation, and a self-contradictory definition of simultaneity, an arbitrary and impossible procedure of clock synchronization, such that the velocity of light would not serve as a measure of absolute rest, but would serve as a measure of artificially defined distance, time and simultaneity--Poincaré's myths reduced to absolutes. The Einsteins' 1905 theory is Drude's interpretation of Lorentz' theory with an overt statement of the addition of velocities. It was far more primitive than Poincaré's theory, in that it lacked insight into the contradictions of classical mechanics with regards to relative motion and inertial motion, which necessitated the pursuit of a general relativity theory.
Moving on to the light postulate, Mileva and Albert were confused, as is proven by the face of the paper. They stated that both the postulates 2 (a) and 2 (b) were the same postulate. However, they are not, but differ greatly in conception and application.
The postulate 2 (b) represents the relative velocity of light to a body, which velocity represents a derived identity in the "resting system"--a system of material coordinates, which we are asked to accept reflects the dimensions of the stated medium, "empty space" or absolutely "resting" space. This phrase, "resting system", apes Hertz-Larmor-Cohn-Lorentz discussing Maxwellian dynamics of absolute space. As the Einsteins indicate, velocity is a derived unit, for,
c = d / t ,
and distance and time units are not derived units, but are fundamental units of empirical observation. Velocity is a unit measure made in abstraction through the a posteriori synthesis of the empirical units of length and time--velocity is a derived unit,62 and length and time are NOT derived units, but are directly observed. Velocity is subjective and metaphysical.
There are no dimensions to "empty space". Therefore, there are no "coordinates" in "empty space". There are no discontinuous "lengths" in empty space, nor are there discontinuous durations of empty space. Therefore, there is no velocity of propagation in empty space. There can be no a posteriori synthesis of empirical length and empirical time into a celeritas in a system of continuous "empty space", which "empty space" is without dimension.
Empty space cannot be taken to signify an idealization of extension and duration. This is obvious in the Einsteins' argument, as they must fill the "empty space" of the resting system with "resting" rods, "resting" measuring rods, and "resting" clocks--a quite cluttered empty space. The "coordinates" are in fact conceptualized bodies, and the measured velocity is not measured in the "coordinates" of "empty space", but is assumed equal to the conceptualized dimensions of bodies and the pretended, idealized synchronization of material changes in bodies, i. e. "clocks", which are always uniform motions, and, therefore, cannot be "resting clocks". Celeritas is, therefore, the subjective comparison of the unit length of a pretend material body metaphysically divided by a pretend unit duration of "uniform" (circularly defined) material change, which purely mathematical pretend "identity" is then ontologically defined as a universally constant "celeritas", with physical properties. The metaphysical "velocity" is absurdly worshiped as "physical", in pure mathematics. However, it is entirely artificial to take the dynamic velocity of Maxwell's equations, c, and to then assert it as a postulate used to derive the units from which it itself is derived. Ten apples plus the Earth's gravitational field may result in the scalar weight of five pounds, but one should not, on that basis, assert that, therefore, five pounds always equals ten apples plus the Earth's gravitational field. That light is assumed to propagate dynamically at c in aether relative to the aether, does not mean that this value of light speed, taken as a scalar, is to be used to derive length, time and simultaneity of moving systems of reference.
The Einsteins apparently copied Poincaré's work of 1898 (and 1904) on relative simultaneity, and followed his prescriptions for it. Poincaré, who was copying Bergson, who was following Flammarion, who, doubtless, was inspired by Cassini, Roemer and Bradley, stated,
"When an astronomer tells me that some stellar phenomenon, which his telescope reveals to him at this moment, happened nevertheless fifty years ago, I seek his meaning, and to that end I shall ask him first how he knows it, that is, how he has measured the velocity of light.
He has begun by supposing that light has a constant velocity, and in particular that its velocity is the same in all directions. That is a postulate without which no measurement of this velocity could be attempted. This postulate could never be verified directly by experiment; it might be contradicted by it if the results of different measurements were not concordant. We should think ourselves fortunate that this contradiction has not happened and that the slight discordances which may happen can be readily explained. The postulate, at all events, resembling the principle of sufficient reason, has been accepted by everybody; what I wish to emphasize is that it furnishes us with a new rule for the investigation of simultaneity, entirely different from that which we have enunciated above. [***] It is difficult to separate the qualitative problem of simultaneity from the quantitative problem of the measurement of time; no matter whether a chronometer is used, or whether account must be taken of a velocity of transmission, as that of light, because such a velocity could not be measured without measuring a time."
The Einsteins' postulate 2 (a) is an unoriginal a posteriori definition of the assumed absolute velocity of light propagating in the ill-defined medium of hypothetical "empty space", which hypothesis cannot be conceptualized rationally, but is apparently a flawed attempt to state the resultant dynamic velocity of Maxwell's equations for light in its medium. Albert confesses this exact proposition,
"[The special theory of relativity] takes over from the theory of Maxwell-Lorentz the assumption of the constancy of the velocity of light in empty space [which contradicts the equivalence of inertial frames]. In order to bring this into harmony with the equivalence of inertial systems (special principle of relativity), the idea of the absolute character of simultaneity must be given up; in addition, the Lorentz Transformations for the time and the space coordinates follow for the transition from one inertial system to another."63
Obviously, this velocity is the absolute velocity of light in its "natural medium (empty space)."64
This postulate is an ill-conceived synthesis of Maxwell's absolute velocity of light propagating in aether, which was a dynamic velocity, and not a kinematic velocity, combined ungracefully with W. K. Clifford's proposition,
"In order to explain the phenomena of light, it is not necessary to assume anything more than a periodical oscillation between two states at any given point of space",
and P. Drude's,
"The conception of an ether absolutely at rest is the most simple and the most natural,--at least if the ether is conceived to be not a substance but merely space endowed with certain physical properties."
The flawed nature of the Einsteins' concept haunted their work for years to come, after 1905. Albert was forced to define the state of rest as geometric, and that of uniform motion as kinematic--the result of hypothesized length contraction and time dilatation of moving material bodies. This geometric analysis of Maxwell's dynamic equations of the aether is irrevocably problematic. It results in Einsteinian superstitions, and unrecoverable contradictions, falsely dubbed "paradoxes".
This oscillation of Clifford's only attains meaning as an oscillation and a velocity, when it is conceived of as moving relative to a body or body of medium, and its velocity of oscillation is, of necessity, different from its velocity of propagation. Therefore, the Einsteins' postulate, which presents a statement of velocity relative to nothing, is irrational, and represents a misstatement of Maxwell's equations for the dynamic propagation of light relative to a quasi-stationary aether, which aether was later taken to signify absolute space--Carl Neumann's "body Alpha".65 The Lorentz Transformations are really the metrical workings of Fresnel's coefficient of drag, and the Doppler-Fizeau Effect relative to the fallacious "body Alpha", expressed kinematically through Ludwig Lange's "inertial systems".
On the other hand, Lorentz adopted Maxwell's physical explanation of the wave velocity of the propagation of light in aether, and asserted a velocity relative to that aether; and Mileva and Albert "disguised" Lorentz' pretentious theory as a "dimensional" explanation of the assumed wave velocity of the propagation of light in "empty space", which, we soon discover, is not empty space, but pretend, resting, material apparatus, which we are asked to equate through pretense to the dimensions of the pseudo-medium, "empty space". James Mackaye eloquently describes this in his work, The Dynamical Universe,66 where he explains that the physical theory of Lorentz was "disguised" as a "dimensional" theory in the Einsteins' paper.
Wallace Kantor abruptly shattered the two postulate myth, by simply quoting Albert, himself, and please note that Albert confessed that length contraction and time dilatation are hypothesized, ad hoc, and not "derived",
"In the special theory of relativity the postulate that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the motion of the emitting body means simply that the speed of light is absolute. Einstein noted in 1905 that the absolute light speed postulate 'is only apparently irreconcilable' with the principle that all other motion is relative. On page 57 of his autobiographical notes of 1949 Einstein noted that the two assumptions of relative material motion and absolute light motion 'are mutually incompatible' but, 'The insight which is fundamental for the special theory of relativity' is that the two assumptions 'are compatible if relations of a new type ('Lorentz Transformations') are postulated for the conversion of coordinates and times of events.' The Lorentz Transformations are based on the two postulates of relative and absolute motion. It is a baffling circular 'insight' that requires the postulation of the Lorentz Transformations to comprehend the stated mutual incompatibility of the two postulates on which the transformations themselves are based."67
It is significant to note, despite the illogic involved in the task, that Mileva and Albert sought to axiomatically define the absolute velocity of light in its medium, as the Maxwell-Hertz formulation of electrodynamics. The second postulate expresses the sentiments of Max Abraham, when he wrote in 1904,
"The electromagnetic theory addresses the absolute motion of light, which light issues forth in every direction with the same velocity (c)"
"Die elektromagnetische Theorie spricht von einer absoluten Bewegung des Lichtes, die nach jeder Richtung hin mit derselben Geschwindigkeit (c) erfolgt"68
The Einsteins' theory is clearly NOT a relativity theory, but is in fact a theory of absolutism, in which Newton's absolutism is further justified, not nullified! For example, we find in their 1905 paper the arbitrary statement,
"We stipulate in accordance with experience, that the magnitude
( 2AB ) / ( t'A - tA ) = c,
is a universal constant (the velocity of light in empty space)."
"[L]ight in empty space always propagates with a determinate velocity c irrespective of the state of motion of the emitting body."
Such statements are pure absolutism. Experience, however, sans Lorentz geometry, shows us that,
( 2AB ) / ( t'A - tA ) = c,
is a unique case of
( 2AB ) / ( t'A - tA ) = c [ 1 - ( v / c )^2 ],
valid only in a system at rest with respect to the homogenous and isotropic medium of propagation. One immediately sees how FitzGerald arrived at his contraction factor.
It is obvious that the Einsteins' statement of the absolute velocity of light refers axiomatically only to the "resting system" in absolute space. One cannot apply that statement axiomatically to a moving system, but must derive the resulting invariant speed from the hypotheses of length contraction, time dilatation and relative simultaneity, some of the additional postulates which appear in the 1905 paper, despite the mythologies set forth by noted experts on the subject, that only two postulates appeared.
The hypotheses of length contraction and time dilatation come first. They are essential to a correlation of the two postulates and cannot be derived from them. It is as though God himself had mandated an invariant measured velocity to light--the conclusion which Minkowski asked us to accept,
"This hypothesis [length contraction resulting in light speed invariance] sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances [sic] in the ether, or anything of that kind, but simply as a gift from above [***] [T]he word relativity-postulate for the requirement of an invariance with the group Gc seems to me very feeble. [***] I prefer to call it the postulate of the absolute world. [***] Thus the essence of this postulate may be clothed mathematically in a very pregnant manner in the mystic formula 3 105 = (-1)1/2 secs."69
Samuel Alexander held that,
"[I]t is clear that Space-Time takes for us the place of what is called the Absolute in idealistic systems. It is an experiential absolute."70
Max Planck stated,
"Einstein's recognition of the fact that our Newtonian-Kantian conception of space and time possesses in a certain sense only a relative value because of the arbitrary choice of the system of correlation and methods of measuring, affects the very root of our physical thought. But if space and time have been deprived of their absolute qualities, the absolute has not been disposed of finally, but has only been moved back a step to the measurement of four-dimensional multiplicity which results from the fact that space and time have been fused into one coherent continuum by means of the speed of light. This system of measurement represents something totally independent of any kind of arbitrariness and hence something absolute."71
" For everything that is relative presupposes the existence of something that is absolute, and is meaningful only when juxtaposed to something absolute. The often heard phrase, "Everything is relative," is both misleading and thoughtless. The Theory of Relativity, too, is based on something absolute, namely, the determination of the matrix of the space-time continuum; and it is an especially stimulating undertaking to discover the absolute which alone makes meaningful something given as relative. [***] Our task is to find in all these factors and data, the absolute, the universally valid, the invariant, that is hidden in them, [sic] This applies to the Theory of Relativity, too. I was attracted by the problem of deducing from its fundamental propositions that which served as their absolute immutable foundation. [***] [T]he Theory of Relativity confers an absolute meaning on a magnitude which in classical theory has only a relative significance: the velocity of light. The velocity of light is to the Theory of Relativity [***] its absolute core. The absolute showed itself to be even more deeply rooted in the order of natural laws than had been assumed for a long time."72
Bertrand Russell wrote in "The ABC of Relativity",
"In fact, though few physicists in modern times have believed in absolute motion, the [special theory of relativity] still embodied Newton's belief in [absolute motion], and a revolution in method was required to obtain a technique free from this assumption. This revolution was accomplished in Einstein's general theory of relativity . [--redacted, emphasis added]"73
Ebenezer Cunningham averred,
"[I]t will be seen, the old philosophical difficulty as to absolute direction or angular velocity remains. [***] Thus we do not appear to be brought any nearer to the removal of the old-time difficulty that the physical laws which seem best to describe the phenomena of motion postulate an absolute standard of direction though not of position, while apart from the physical phenomena there is no independent means of identifying such a direction."74
Charles Nordmann recognized that,
"Up to this point the theory of Relativity well deserves its name. But now, in spite of it and its very name, there arises something which seems to have an independent and determined existence in the external world, an objectivity, an absolute reality. This is the "Interval" of events, which remains constant and invariable through all the fluctuations of things, however infinitely varied may be the points of view and standards of reference. From this datum, which, speaking philosophically, strangely shares the intrinsic qualities with which the older absolute time and absolute space were so much reproached, the whole constructive part of Relativity, the part which leads to the splendid verifications we described, is derived. Thus the theory of Relativity seems to deny its origin, even its very name, in all that makes it a useful monument of science, a constructive tool, an instrument of discovery. It is a theory of a new absolute: the interval represented by the geodetics of the quadri-dimensional universe. It is a new absolute theory."75
Melchior Palágyi stated,
"Die durch Einstein eingeführte Bennenung: 'Relativitätstheorie' ist zwar höchst unglücklich gewählt; wir behalten sie aber bei wie irgendeinen beliebigen Eigennamen, den man nicht abändern mag, weil man sich an ihn gewöhnt hat. Relativitätstheorie bedeutet uns immer nur so viel als: das neue Weltsystem, das aus der Einheitslehre von Raum und Zeit und das der Vereinheitlichung von Mechanik und Elektrodynamik entspringt."76
And Albert professed, after the general theory was established, that,
"There is no absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space, and no absolute relation in time between two events, but there is an absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space and time"77
Claude Kacser affirmed,
"What is absolute is stated in Einstein's first relativity postulate: The basic laws of physics are identical for two observers who have a constant relative velocity with respect to each other."78
Joshua N. Goldberg informs us that,
"Minkowski space is an absolute space-time."79
Robert Resnick concluded that,
"The theory of relativity could have been called the theory of absolutism with some justification. [***] there are absolute lengths and times in relativity. [***] Where relativity theory is clearly "more absolute" than classical physics is in the relativity principle itself: the laws of physics are absolute."80
It is some strange "relativity theory", which is more absolutist than classical absolutism! The knowingly false appellation under which the "relativists" masquerade speaks volumes as to their desire to perpetuate their delusions, and their stubborn willingness to pretend in spite of the facts, rather than to be rational. The Einsteins' paper of 1905 was a paper on absolute space, the absolute velocity of light, and the absolute laws of Nature. It is by no means a theory of relativity. Albert maintained a belief in absolute space up until the publication of his paper on the general theory of relativity in 1916. Both so-called "postulates", the "postulate of the absolute world" feebly called the "principle of relativity", and the "postulate" of the absolute velocity of light, are self-contradicting, absolutist fantasies--evidence that a belief in the two "postulates" is seductive only to those willing to worship mythology.
Minkowski knew that the term "relativity postulate" was a feeble misnomer, even if space is taken as the relational, uniform translation of reference systems, for there is yet an absolute world lurking as the substratum for the invariants and intervals. However, the "absolute world" is nothing physical. It is simply the axiomatic effect of a set of human, abstract, mathematical rules, existing only in abstract language, and nothing more. There is nothing surprising or revelatory in the fact that rules which are taken as absolute prescribe absolutes.
So, we see that it is a myth that the "two postulates" are indeed postulates, for they are a dynamic, absolutist definition, and an absolutist corollary to that artificial definition. It is a myth that the theory of relativity is a relativity theory at all, for it is absolutism. Both "postulates" were enunciated long before the Einsteins copied them. And, we see that it is a myth that the so-called Lorentz Transformation was "derived" in the 1905 paper from the "two postulates", for the Einsteins arrived at it Petitio Principii, using it to arrive at it, so as to irrationally disguise their aping the theory of Lorentz.
1. Sir Edmund Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Vol. II, Philosophical Library Inc., New York, (1954), pp. 27-77.
2. M. Einstein-Marity and A. Einstein, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper, Annalen der Physik, 17, (1905), pp. 891-921.
3. W. Kantor, Relativistic Propagation of Light, Coronado Press, Lawrence, Kansas, (1976).
4. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerung, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4, (1907), pp. 411-462.
5. Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on the Special Theory of Relativity: A Facsimile, George Braziller, Inc., (1996), pp. 73, 79, 91.
6. M. v. Laue, Das Relativitätsprinzip, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, (1911), Sec. 6.
7. A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Annalen der Physik, 49, 7, (1916), pp. 769-822; trans. into English by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952), pp. 111-164.
A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Barth, Leipzig, (1916).
8. L. Lange, Über die wissenschaftliche Fassung der Galilei'schen Beharrungsgesetzes, Philosophische Studien, 2, (1885), pp. 266-297, 539-545.
L. Lange, Ueber das Beharrungsgesetz, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, mathematisch-physische Classe, 37, (1885), pp. 333-351.
L. Lange, Die geschichtliche Entwickelung des Bewegungsbegriffs und ihr voraussichtliches Endergebniss. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Kritik der mechanischen Principien von Ludwig Lange. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, (1886).
L. Lange, Das Inertialsystem vor dem Forum der Naturforschung, Leipzig, (1902).
L. Lange, Das Inertialsystem vor dem Forum der Naturforschung: Kritisches und Antikritisches, Philosophische Studien, 20, (1902) pp. 1-71.
E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics, Open Court, (1960), pp. 291-297.
E. Gehrcke, Kritik der Relativitätstheorie, Hermann Meusser, Berlin, (1924), pp. 17, 30-34.
E. Gehrcke, Über den Sinn der Absoluten Bewegung von Körpern, Sitzberichten der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, XII, Jahrgang, (1912), pp. 209-222.
E. Gehrcke, Über die Koordinatensystem der Mechanik, Verhandlung der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, XV, Jahrgang, (1913), pp. 260-266.
H. Seeliger, Vierteljahrsschrift der astronomischen Gesellschaft, XXII, p. 252.
9. E. Gehrcke, Über den Sinn der Absoluten Bewegung von Körpern, Sitzberichten der Königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, XII, Jahrgang, (1912), pp. 209-222.
E. Gehrcke, Über die Koordinatensystem der Mechanik, Verhandlung der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, XV, Jahrgang, (1913), pp. 260-266.
10. M. v. Laue, Die Relativitätstheorie, Erster Band (Vol. I), Das Relativitätsprinzip der Lorentztransformation, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, (1921), p. 7.
11. A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Annalen der Physik, 49, 7, (1916), pp. 770.
12. A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Annalen der Physik, 49, 7, (1916), pp. 772.
13. A. Einstein, Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, (1917), pp. 7-8.
14. J. Laub, Annalen der Physik, 23, (1907), pp. 738-744.
15. H. Minkowski, Annalen der Physik, 47, (1915), pp. 927-938.
H. Minkowski, "Die Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge in bewegten Körpern", Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen, (1908), pp. 53-111; reprinted in: Gesammelte Abhandlungen, edited by D. Hilbert, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, Vol. 2, pp. 352-404; translated into English: The Principle of Relativity: Original Papers by A. Einstein and H. Minkowski Translated into English by M. N. Saha and S. N. Bose, University of Calcutta, (1920), H. Minkowski, "Principle of Relativity", translated by Dr. Meghnad N. Saha, pp. 1-52.
H. Minkowski, "Raum und Zeit", Physikalische Zeitschrift, 10, (1909), 104-111; reprinted in "Gesammelte Abhandlungen", Edited by D. Hilbert, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig, Vol. 2, pp. 431-444; translated into English by: W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952), pp. 75-91.
16. H. Poincaré's lecture from September of 1904, The Monist, 15, 1, January, (1905), p. 5; reprinted in: The Value of Science and The Foundations of Science; (herein reprinted).
17. H. Poincaré, _uvres de Henri Poincaré, Vol. IX, Gautier-Villars, (1954), p. 412; reprinted from: "A PROPOS DE LA THÉORIE DE M. LARMOR", L'Éclairage électrique, Vol. 5, (October 5th, 1895) pp. 5-14.
18. Cf. T.H. Pasley, A Theory of Natural Philosophy, on Mechanical Principles, Divested of All Immaterial Chymical Properties, Showing for the First Time the Physical Cause of Continuous Motion, Whittaker & Co., London, (1836).
19. A. Schuster, The Progress of Physics during 33 years (1875-1908) Four Lectures delivered to the University of Calcutta during March 1908, CUP, (1911), pp. 109-111.
20. "The group of the Galilean Transformations" "die Gruppe der Galilei-Transformationen" is an appellation supplied by Philipp Frank, Die Stellung des Relativitätsprinzips im System der Mechanik und der Elektrodynamik, Sitzungsberichte der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 118, (1909), p. 382.
21. Cf. W. Kantor, Relativistic Propagation of Light, Coronado Press, Lawrence, Kansas, (1976).
22. H. A. Lorentz, Das Relativitätsprinzip; drei Vorlesungen gehalten in Teylers Stiftung zu Haarlem, B. G. Teubner, Leipzig-Berlin, (1920). p. 23.
23. W. Pauli, Theory of Relativity, Pergamon Press, London, Edinburgh, New York, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Braunschweig, (1958), p. 5.
24. A. Sommerfeld, Electrodynamics, Academic Press, (1952), p. 235.
25. A. Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, translated by: G. B. Jeffery and W. Perret, Methuen & Co., London, (1922); republished, unabridged and unaltered: Dover, New York, (1983), pp. 16-24.
26. The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952). p. 83.
27. H. A. Lorentz, Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with any Velocity Smaller than that of Light, Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Amsterdam, 6, May 27th, (1904), p. 809; (herein reprinted).
28. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerung, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4, (1907), p. 413.
29. E. Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung, 3rd Ed., F. A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, (1897), pp. 236-237.
30. A. Schuster, The Progress of Physics during 33 years (1875-1908) Four Lectures delivered to the University of Calcutta during March 1908, CUP, (1911), pp. 114-117.
31. H. Dingle, in his introduction to H. Bergson's, Duration and Simultaneity, Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., Indianapolis, New York, Kansas City, (1965), p. xlii.
32. J. Larmor, Aether and Matter, CUP, (1900), p. 78.
33. W. Reich, Ether, God and Devil: Cosmic Superimposition, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, (1973), p. 45.
34. P. Drude, The Theory of Optics, Longmans, Green and Co., London-New York-Toronto, (1902), pp. 261, 457.
35. Emil Cohn, Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen, (1901), p. 74; Annalen der Physik, 7, (1902), p. 30.
36. W. K. Clifford, Clifford's Lectures and Essays, Vol. I, Macmillan, London, (1879), p. 85.
37. J. H. Poincaré, Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de L'Académie des sciences, 140, (1905), pp. 1504-1508 (herein reprinted).
J. H. Poincaré, Sur la Dynamique de l'Électron, Rendiconti del Circolo matimatico di Palermo, 21, (1906, submitted July 23rd, 1905), pp. 129-176. English trans. by H. M. Schwartz, Amer. Jour. Of Phys. 39, (November, 1971), 1287-1294; 40, (June, 1972), 1282-1287; 40, (September, 1972), 1282-1287.
38. W. Voigt, "Ueber das Doppler'sche Princip", Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen, (1887), p. 41; reprinted Physikalische Zeitschrift, 16, (1915), p. 381, (herein reprinted).
39. S. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity, Birkhäuser, Boston, Basel, Stuttgart, (1984), p. 456.
40. Cf. D. Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sect. VII, Parts I & II.
41. J. Larmor, Aether and Matter, CUP, (1900), pp. 272, 278, 279.
42. The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952), p. 38; translated by: W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery.
43. The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952), pp. 75-76.
44. H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, Das Relativitätsprinzip (with notes from A. Sommerfeld), B. G. Teubner, Leipzig-Berlin, (1913), p. 27.
45. G. H. Keswani, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, (1965), 15, 60, pp. 299-300.
46. M. Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London, (1924), pp. 188.
47. A. Einstein, Physics Today, 35, 8, August, (1982), p. 46.
48. C. V. Durell, Readable Relativity, G. Bell & Sons, Ltd., (1938), reprinted in James R. Newman, The World of Mathematics, Vol 2, Simon and Schuster, New York, (1956), p. 1120.
49. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerung, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4, (1907), p. 413; translation by: H. M. Schwartz, American Journal of Physics, Vol. 45, No. 6, June, (1977), p.513.
50. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerung, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4, (1907), p. 416.
51. A. Einstein, Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerung, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 4, (1907), p. 416.
52. Max Abraham, Zur Theorie der Strahlung und des Strahlungsdruckes, Annalen der Physik, 4, 14, (1904), p. 238.
53. W. S. Jevons, The Principles of Science, 2nd Ed., Macmillan, London, (1877), p. 331.
54. A. Einstein, Physics Today, 35, 8, August, (1982), p. 46.
55. P. Frank, Einstein, His Life and Times, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, (1967), pp. 32, 54-55. Note that Frank uses Budde's terminology of the 'Fundamental System' 'F '.
56. A. Reiser, Albert Einstein, a Biographical Portrait, Albert & Charles Boni, New York, (1930), p. 106-107.
57. J. H. Jeans, An Elementary Treatise on Theoretical Mechanics, Ginn & Company, Boston-New York-Chicago-London, (1907), p. 33.
58. A. Reiser, Albert Einstein, a Biographical Portrait, Albert & Charles Boni, New York, (1930), pp. 105-106.
59. Boscovich [Supplement II]
60. J. D. Everett, Elementary Treatise on Natural Philosophy, Part I, 13th Ed. (1883), p. 43, herein reprinted.
61. A. Schuster, The Progress of Physics during 33 years (1875-1908) Four Lectures delivered to the University of Calcutta during March 1908, CUP, (1911), pp. 109-111.
For a discussion of the conceptualization, as well as a useful set of notes and references, see: J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Paperback Edition, CUP, (1989), Chapter 9, "How to teach special relativity", pp. 67-80.
62. W. S. Jevons, The Principles of Science, 2nd Ed., revised, London, New York, Macmillan, (1877), p. 321.
E. Mach, The Science of Mechanics, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, (1960), p. 367.
63. A. Einstein, Relativity, the Special and the General Theory, Crown, New York, (1961), App. V, p. 148.
64. J. Laub, Zur Optik der bewegten Körper, Annalen der Physik, IV, 23, (1907), p. 739.
65. C. Neumann, Ueber die Principien der Galilei-Newton'schen Theorie, Leipzig, 1870.
66. J. Mackaye, The Dynamic Universe, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, (1931).
67. W. Kantor, Relativistic Propagation of Light, Coronado Press, Lawrence, Kansas, (1976), p. 18.
68. Max Abraham, Zur Theorie der Strahlung und des Strahlungsdruckes, Annalen der Physik, 4, 14, (1904), p. 238.
69. The Principle of Relativity, Dover, New York, (1952), pp. 81, 83, 88.
70. S. Alexander, Space, Time, and Deity, Vol. I, Macmillan, London, (1920), p. 346
71. M. Planck quoted in: A. Reiser, Albert Einstein, a Biographical Portrait, Albert & Charles Boni, New York, (1930), p. 104.
72. Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography, and Other Papers, Philosophical Library, New York, (1949), pp. 46-48.
73. B. Russell, The ABC of Relativity, The New American Library, New York, (1959), pp. 62-63.
74. E. Cunningham, The Principle of Relativity, CUP, (1914), pp.8, 90.
75. C. Nordmann, Einstein and the Universe, Henry Holt and Company, New York, (1922), pp.204-205.
76. M. Palágyi, Die Relativitätstheorie in der modernen Physik, reprinted in: Zur Weltmechanik, Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig, (1925), p. 36.
77. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton Science Library Ed., (1988), pp. 30-31.
78. C. Kacser, "Relativity, Special Theory", Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd Ed., VCH Publishers, Inc., New York-Weinheim-Cambridge-Basel, (1991), p. 1052.
79. J. N. Goldberg, "Space-Time", Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd Ed., VCH Publishers, Inc., New York-Weinheim-Cambridge-Basel, (1991), p. 1159.
80. R. Resnick, Introduction to Special Relativity, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, London, Sidney, (1968), pp. 92-93.Copyright© 2000-2001.
Christopher Jon Bjerknes.
All Rights Reserved.
CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE HOME PAGE
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS DOCUMENT AS A PDF FILE